1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. C.W.P(T) No. 11625 of 2008 Date of Decision: 23.12.2011 Manohar Lal S/o late sh. Padam Nath, R/O House No. 51/2 Purani Mandi, District Mandi(HP), presently working as Senior Assistant, Electrical Sub Division, H.P State Electricity Board, Manali, Himachal Pradesh. .. Petitioner. Versus 1. Himachal Pradesh state Electricity Board through its Secretary, Vidyut Bhawan, Shimla-171004. 2. Chief Engineer (operation), Central Zone, H.P State Electricity Board, Mandi(H.P.) ..Respondents. Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. T.C Sharma,Advocate For the Respondents: Mr.Adarsh Sharma,Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral). Petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: i). To quash and set aside the Impugned order dated 6.2.96 at Annexure ‘PA’; ii). To direct the respondents to grant to the applicant promotional increments on completion of his 23 years regular service 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 w.e.f 1.4.1992 and next increment w.e.f 1.4.1993. iii). To allow the arrears of pay on account of pay already drawn and pay due w.e.f 1.4.1992 onwards as a result of promotional increments on completion of 23 years regular service; iv) To direct the respondents to grant such other benefits which may flow on account of grant of promotional increments w.e.f 1.4.1992;” 2. Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the decision rendered by this court in CWP(T) No. 11642 of 2008, Lal Singh Vs. Secretary, H.P State Electricity Board and another, dated 6.8.2010, copy of which is taken on record. Having gone through the record , I am of the considered view that the facts in the instant case are almost similar to the one considered by the court in Lal Singh (Supra). 3. Here also petitioner had served in the municipal committee, Mandi and the period of his service rendered there has not been considered by the respondents for the purposes of according benefits. As such, facts being similar, the directions issued in Lal Singh (supra) shall mutatis mutandis apply to the instant case also. Annexure 3 PA dated 6.2.1996 is quashed. All consequential action shall be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. It is clarified that monetary benefits, if any, found to be due and admissible be also released within the aforesaid period, failing which, then thereafter, petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum which shall be personally recovered from the erring officials. 3. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of so also the pending application(s), if any. (Sanjay Karol),Judge. December 23,2011 (Priti)