IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 7404 of 2011 Decided on: 8th September, 2011. Kusum Lata Vs. State of H.P. & anr. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, AG with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. AG. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayer: “i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents to count the tenure service rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 18.9.1987 uptil 31.3.1994 when the services of the petitioner was regularized, for the purposes of increments and pensionary benefits by further granting all consequential benefits to the petitioner, in the light of the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in LPA No. 36 of 2010 titled as Sita Ram Vs. State of H.P. & ors.” 2. The petitioner claims the benefit of increments during the tenure period of service rendered by her and also count the said period for the purpose of pension. According to the petitioner, the issue is covered in her favour by the judgment 2 of this Court dated 16.12.2010 rendered in CWP No. 4550 of 2010 titled as Ravi Kumar vs. State of H.P. & others. 3. Learned Deputy Advocate General points out that the factual aspects are to be verified by the competent authority. Petitioner submits that she would file appropriate representation furnishing all factual details before the competent authority within a period of one month from today. It is always open for her to do so. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is 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. 5. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 8th September, 2011. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), (kck) Judge.