IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPs No. 9373 & 9374 of 2011-H. Decided on: 16th November, 2011. 1. CWP No. 9373 of 2011-H Parveen Kumar Singh & others Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. 2. CWP No. 9374 of 2011-H Surinder Kumar Pathania & others Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioners : Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “A. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to take into consideration the un-interrupted tenure services rendered by the petitioners prior to their regularization for the purpose of calculation of grant of annual increments. B. That the respondents may kindly be directed to release the due, admissible and payable arrears to the petitioners forthwith along with the interest @ 9% per annum.” 2. The petitioners claim the benefit of increments during the tenure period of service rendered by them and also count the said period for the purpose of pension. According to the petitioners, the issue is covered in their favour by the judgment of this Court dated 16.12.2010 rendered in CWP 2 No. 4550 of 2010 titled as Ravi Kumar vs. State of H.P. & others. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General points out that the factual aspects are to be verified by the competent authority. Petitioners submit that they would file appropriate representation(s) furnishing all factual details before the competent authority within a period of one month from today. It is always open for them to do so. 4. Therefore, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondent concerned to examine the matter and verify the facts in the light of the judgment referred to above and take appropriate action thereon within a period of four months from the date of the production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition and the copy of the judgment referred to above by the petitioner concerned. 5. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 16th November, 2011. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), (tr/kck) Judge. 3