CWP No.1211 of 2007 with CWPs No. 1212, 1213, 1214, 1216, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224 and 1225 of 2007. 18.3.2008: Present: Mr. Anuj Nag, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional, Advocate General for the respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate for respondents No. 4 and 5. These petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment since common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of these petitions are that the petitioners have been teaching in Shri Shakti Senior Secondary School, Shri Naina Devi Ji Temple Trust. The petitioner in CWP No. 1211 of 2007 was appointed as a Lecturer in Chemistry on 18.11.1999, the petitioner in CWP No.1212/2007 was appointed as a Lecturer in Economics on 19.10.1987, the petitioner in CWP No. 1213/2007 was appointed as a Lecturer in Sanskrit on 28.6.1998, the petitioner in CWP No. 1214/2007 was appointed as a Lecturer in Political Science, the petitioner in CWP No. 1216/2007 was appointed as D.P.E. on 14.12.1992, the petitioner in CWP No.1221 was appointed as a Lecturer in English on 24.1.1990, the petitioner in CWP No. 1222/2007 was appointed as a Lecturer in Physics on 15.10.1998, the petitioner in CWP No.1223/2007 was appointed as T.G.T. on 18.10.1995, the petitioner in CWP No. 1224/2007 was appointed as a Lecturer in History on 15.12.1993 and the petitioner in CWP No. 1225/2007 was appointed as a Lecturer in Mathematics on 1.12.1997. 2 Mr. Anuj Nag, Advocate submits that his clients are entitled to pay scale equivalent to their counter-parts working in Government Schools with effect from their initial date of appointments. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the order dated 4.5.2007 whereby a committee comprising of Secretary (Education) and Secretary (Language and Culture) was constituted to look into the grievance of the petitioner in CWP No. 540 of 2004. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents No.4 and 5 submits that the case of the petitioners can be decided for the grant of pay scale at par with their counter-parts serving in the Government Schools on the analogy of earlier order dated 4.5.2007 and the recommendations made by the Committee on 10.7.2007. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This Court in CWP No. 540 of 2004 titled Meena Thakur versus State of H.P. after hearing the parties had passed a detailed order on 4.5.2007. The operative portion of the orders reads thus: “Though this Court is prima facie of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to revised pay scale of Rs. 6400- 10640 with effect from the years 1993 to 2000, it is desirable if the Committee comprising of the Secretary (Educati0on) and Secretary (Language and Culture) looks into the matter judiciously. Accordingly the Committee comprising of Secretary (Education) and Secretary (Language and Culture) is constituted to resolve the impasse by whom petitioner’s salary is to be paid. If in the ultimate analysis the Committee comes to 3 the conclusion that the salary has to be paid for the years 1993 to 2000 on the basis of the grant-in-aid then the State must take immediate step to release the same in favour of the schools to enable it to disburse the same to the petitioner. If the Committee comes to the conclusion that the salary is to be paid by the Management i.e. respondent No.5 in that eventuality also it will be incumbent upon the management to release the necessary funds immediately in favour of Shakti Senior Secondary School, Naina Devi Ji for its further disbursement to the petitioner. The Committee is directed to take decision within a period of three weeks from the receipt of certified copy of this order.” In sequel to the directions issued by this Court on 4.5.2007, the Committee deliberated upon the matter and a decision was taken on 10.7.2007. It was decided by the Committee that the necessary funds will be released by the temple trust within 3 days to the petitioner Smt. Meena Thakur. Thereafter the Trust Management Committee could submit a CAE for the grant-in-aid to the Director (Higher Education), H.P. Mr. Anuj Nag submits that in sequel to the decision taken on 10.7.2007, the petitioner’s salary in CWP No. 540/2004 was released in her favour. It is admitted case of the parties that the facts of the case titled Meena Thakur versus State of H.P. and others and of these petitions are identical. The petitioners have not been paid the pay scale to which they are legally entitled at par with their counter-parts serving in the Government Schools with effect from due date. Since the facts of these cases are identical to the 4 case of Smt. Meena Thakur, the directions issued in CWP No. 540/2004 will cover the case of the petitioners as well. Consequently it is directed that the respondents No.4 and 5 will release the salaries of the petitioners from due date and thereafter submit a CAE to the Director (Higher Education), H.P. The petitioners’ salaries will be released by respondents No.4 and 5 within a period of 3 weeks from today. In view of the observations made hereinabove, all the petitions are disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Copy Dasti, on usual terms. March 18, 2008 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *Awasthi*