IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 10725 of 2008. Decided on: 26.8.2011. ___________________________________________________________ Smt. Kavita Kaushal and another. … Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. AG and Mr.Anil Jaswal, Dy.A.G. for the respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petition has been filed with the following prayers, vide para 7 (i) & (ii):- “7 (i). That the impugned order dated 23.5.2003 and 2.8.2003 so far the same pertains to grant of revises pay scale to the contract teachers/lecturers may be declared to be validly issued and the applicants may be held entitled for all consequential benefits alongwith interest at some nationalized bank rate. (ii). That the Annexure A-1 and Annexure A-2 may kindly be quashed and set aside. 2. In reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 3, the following stand has been taken vide para 3:- “3. It is denied that any illegal & unjustified order has been passed by the replying respondents for reduction in pay and recovery thereof in respect of the applicant. However, it is admitted that letter No. Fin-F-I(C )14-Vol.III dated 14.10.2003 (Annexure R1/A) was issued 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 by the replying respondent No.1 vide which the Education Department was required to withdraw its letter No. Shiksha-II Kha (12) 2/99 dated 23.5.2003 and letter of even no. dated 30.7.2003 as the same was issued without prior concurrence of the Finance Department which is mandatory under relevant provision of Rules of Business of Govt. of H.P., 1971 and as a consequence the status obtaining before 23.5.2003 was to be maintained with regard to the wage structure of the said category of the contractual appointees. This letter was further circulated by the Special Secretary (Finance)- cum-Director, Treasuries and Accounts Organization, Shimla to all the Deputy Directors (Treasury Inspection)/District Treasury Officers/Treasury Officers in the State for information and necessary action vide its letter No. Fin (TR)B (7)-14/2003 dated 22.10.2003 (Annexure A/1). The said letter at Annexure R1/A is justified, legal and is within competent jurisdiction as same has been issued in light of the relevant provisions of the Rules of Business of Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, 1971.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits at the very outset that the case of the petitioners is covered under judgment dated 11.8.2011 rendered by this Court in CWP (T) No. 10926 of 2008, Hari Charan versus State of H.P.S and others. 4. In view of the above, if on facts the case of the petitioners is covered under the judgment dated 11.8.2011 referred to hereinabove in CWP (T) No. 10926 of 2008 and they are similarly situate, they shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and benefit of the said judgment shall be extended to 3 them within three months from the date of production of copies of this judgment and the judgment referred to hereinabove by the petitioner before the respondents/competent authority. 5. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. August 26, 2011. (cr)