IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 6271 of 2008 Decided on: 16.09.2010 Ashraf Ali …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. For the petitioner. : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2. None for respondents No. 3 and 4. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India, for respondent No. 5. _______________________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) : The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: (I) That respondents No. 1,2 and 5 may kindly be directed to finalize the case of the applicant for revised DCRG, pension, computation of pension and encashment of leave salary on the basis of revised pay scales and to pay the same to the applicant immediately. (ii) That respondents 1 to 4 further be directed to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount for which the applicant is entitled and has been wrongly and 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- illegally with-held by the respondents 1 to 4. (iii) That respondents 1 to 4 may kindly be directed to give the benefits of Annexures A-8 and A-10 pertaining to the increase in un-utilised earned leave from 240 days to 300 days and Assured Career Progression Scheme as introduced by respondents 1 and 2 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and to pay the arrears on the basis of said Scheme to the applicant along with 18% per annum interest w.e.f. 31.12.1997 till it is actually paid. 2. In view of the intervening developments, apparently, the dispute survives only with respect to certain aspects including claim for delayed disbursement of the benefits. For such survived grievances, the petitioner may approach either the 1st respondent or the Civil Court. Therefore, in the event of the petitioner approaching the 1st respondent, the matter will be duly considered within a period of 4 months thereafter, with the notice to the petitioner and in case the petitioner approaches the Civil Court, the time the writ petition was pending before this Court, shall be excluded in computing the period of limitation, since the petitioner is relegated to pursue the civil remedy only by this judgment. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. September 16, 2010 (Bhupender/K. Attri)