IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 4011 of 2011 along with CWP Nos. 4014 and 4019 of 2011. Decided on: 1st June, 2011. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No. 4011 of 2011 Vinod Kumar & Ors. vs. State of H.P. and ors. 2. CWP No. 4014 of 2011 Vijay Singh and others vs. State of H.P. and ors. 3. CWP No. 4019 of 2011 Ajay Kumar & Ors vs. State of H.P. and ors. ____________________________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma,, Judge. For the petitioners: Mr. V.D. Khidta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K.Bawa, AG, with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G. for the respondents-State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petitions are filed mainly on the similar prayers and one such set of prayer is as follows: “ (i). That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for promotion and regularization as contingent paid Class IV Helper-cum- Chowkidar from the date they complete 8 years continuous service with all consequential benefits including the arrears of salary, seniority etc. (ii). That the respondents my kindly be directed to discontinue giving of appointment of contract basis. (iii). That the respondents may kindly be directed to put the services of the petitioners under the Department instead of Gram Panchayat. 2 2 (iv). That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the salary for the vacation period during which period, the petitioners are performing their duties. (v) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the wages equal to the wages paid to the regularly appointed Class- IV employees on the princip0le of ‘equal pay for equal work’. (vi) That the respondents may kindly be3 directed to maintain the seniority list of the petitioners, so that their candidature can be considered for promotion/regularization on the basis of seniority.” 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the cases are squarely covered by the decision of this Court dated 21st December, 2010, rendered in CWP No. 7896 of 2010 titled as Jai Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. 3. Therefore, there will be a direction to the second respondent/competent authority to look into the matter, verify the facts and in case the petitioners herein are similarly situated as the petitioners in the decision, referred to above, similar treatment shall be extended to the petitioners herein also within a period of four months from the date of 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 before the second respondent/competent authority. 4. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending applicati9ons, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice (Justice V.K. Sharma) Judge 1st June, 2011. (lsp/jai)