IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 14653 of 2008 with CWP(T) No. 14654 of 2008 and CWP(T) No. 14655 of 2008. Date of Decision : December 22, 2011 1. CWP(T) No. 14653 of 2008 Mrs. Siza Thakur wife of Ramesh Thakur, resident of village Behli, post office Bhutti, Tehsil Kumarsain, Distt. Shimla (HP). Petitioner Versus 1. State of Himachal Pradesh, through Principal Secretary (Social Justice and Empowerment) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2. 2. Director, Social Justice and Empowerment, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-9, (HP). 3. Secretary, HP State Social Welfare Advisory Board, Thakur Vatika Khalini, Shimla-2, HP. 4. The Central Social Welfare Board, Dr. Durgabai Deshmukh Samaj, Kalyan Bhawan, B-12, Qutab Institutional Area, New Dehli-110603, through its Deputy Director (MMP). 5. Secretary, Samaj Uthan Samiti Mahasu, Office at Nirshu, Post Office Dattnagar, Tehsil Rampur Distt. Shimla. Respondents Original Application under Section 19 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. 2. CWP(T) No. 14654 of 2008 Mrs. Kokila wife of Sh. Madan Lal, resident of Village Lathi, post office Jar, Tehsil Kumarsain, Distt. Shimla (HP). Petitioner Versus 2 1. State of Himachal Pradesh, through Principal Secretary (Social Justice and Empowerment) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2. 2. Director, Social Justice and Empowerment, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-9, (HP). 3. Secretary, HP State Social Welfare Advisory Board, Thakur Vatika Khalini, Shimla-2, HP. 4. The Central Social Welfare Board, Dr. Durgabai Deshmukh Samaj, Kalyan Bhawan, B-12, Qutab Institutional Area, New Dehli-110603, through its Deputy Director (MMP). 5. Secretary, Samaj Uthan Samiti Mahasu, Office at Nirshu, Post Office Dattnagar, Tehsil Rampur Distt. Shimla. Respondents Original Application under Section 19 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. 3. CWP(T) No. 14655 of 2008 Ms. Gita Kaul daughter of late Sh. Raghu Raj, resident of village Mehlan post office Kotgarh, Tehsil Kumarsain, Distt. Shimla (HP). Petitioner Versus 1. State of Himachal Pradesh, through Principal Secretary (Social Justice and Empowerment) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2. 2. Director, Social Justice and Empowerment, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-9, (HP). 3. Secretary, HP State Social Welfare Advisory Board, Thakur Vatika Khalini, Shimla-2, HP. 4. The Central Social Welfare Board, Dr. Durgabai Deshmukh Samaj, Kalyan Bhawan, B-12, Qutab Institutional Area, New Dehli-110603, through its Deputy Director (MMP). 5. Secretary, Samaj Uthan Samiti Mahasu, Office at Nirshu, Post Office Dattnagar, Tehsil Rampur Distt. Shimla. Respondents Original Application under Section 19 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. 3 Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate ( in all the three petitions). For the respondents : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for respondents No. 1 and 2 (in all the three petitions). Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 3 (in all the three petitions). Mr. Sandeep Sharma, ASGI, along with Ms. Anita Dogra, Advocate, for respondent No. 4 (in all the three petitions) Mr. B. M. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No. 5 (in all the three petitions). Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) This Court vide judgment dated 28.2.2011 passed in CWP(T) No. 14656 of 2008, titled as Mrs. Urmila Thakur versus State of H.P. & others, copy of which is taken on record, in similar circumstances and with regard to similarly situated person has directed respondents No. 1 and 4 to consider case of petitioner therein for grant of revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The Court relied upon an earlier judgment dated 14.7.2010 rendered by this Court in CWP(T) No. 12225 of 2008, titled as Kumari Meera Thakur and others versus State of H.P. and others. Petitioner is also similarly situated and praying for same relief. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 4 2. As such present petition is disposed of with directions to respondents No. 1 and 4 to also consider the petitioner’s case in terms of directions issued by this Court in Urmila Thakur’s case (supra). Needful shall positively be done within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the judgment by the petitioner(s). Petitions stand disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge. December 22 , 2011 (PK)