1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 8985 of 2008 Date of decision: 24.12.2010. ________________________________________________________________ Seema Tyagi .....Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: None, though represented. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petition has been filed with the following prayer: “That the record of the case may be called for and after perusal of the same the impugned order/memo dated 16.2.2002 (Annexure A-1) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to order for payment of D.A. as previously was being paid to the applicant with all consequential benefits.” 2. There is no reply as yet. 3. The record reveals that the representation, Annexure A-4, was submitted by the petitioner and some other similarly situate teachers to respondent No.1. However, it appears that neither the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 same has been considered, nor any decision taken thereon. 4. In such circumstances, the petition is disposed of with the observation that in case the grievance raised by the petitioner still surviving, it shall be open to her to make a representation to respondent No.2 within one month from today along with copy of this judgment and the said respondent shall consider the same and take a final decision in the matter within next three months in accordance with law and justice, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending CMP(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of as infructuous. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 24th December, 2010 (jai)