IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 2250/2008 (OA No. 510/94) Date of Decision : July 29, 2009 Sh. Dharam Pal Sharma Petitioner Versus State of H.P. Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Petitioner in person. For the respondent : Mr. R. K. Sharma, Senior Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. J. S. Rana, Astt. Advocate General for the respondent. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner, at the time of filing the petition was working as Superintendent of Police, Enforcement (Admn./Oprn.) Shimla. In effect he is seeking grant of the scale of pay of Rs. 1775 – 2200 as provided for the post of Additional Superintendent of Police and State Police Welfare Officer in accordance with the “Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1980 for certain Class – I posts under the Police Department”. The petitioner has cleared his statutory departmental examination and has enjoyed excellent service record. But however 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 inspite of the same he was kept in the pay scale of Rs. 940 – 1850/- which scale was actually meant for the lower post of Deputy Superintendent. The petition was opposed by the State. On 6.7.2009 after hearing the parties this Court passed the following order:- “6.7.2009 Present: Petitioner in person. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Additional A.G. with Mr. Vivek Thakaur, Additional A.G. and Mr. J.S. Rana, Asstt. A.G., for the respondent. List on 29.7.2009. Mr. Sharma, Learned Senior Additional Advocate General to examine the matter, as also the applicability of the judgment passed by the Tribunal (Annexure-RR-I) in the case of the present petitioner.” Today it has been brought to my notice that not only the judgment passed by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in TA No. 96/87, titled as Shri S.P. Kaushal and another versus State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 10th January, 1992 (Annexure-RR-I), wherein under similar circumstances benefit was accorded to similarly situate person and the State was directed to release the pay scale in accordance with the aforesaid Rules, stands complied with, but even subsequently, this Court in CWP(T) No. 2270 of 2008, titled as Pardeep Kumar versus State of H.P., decided on 3rd March, 2009 under similar circumstances granted similar benefits to similarly situated officers and directed release of pay scale of Rs. 1775 – 2200. 3 Undisputedly the aforesaid decisions squarely settle the issue and are applicable to the facts of the present case. The matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions. As such the respondents herein are directed to accord the same benefits as stand accorded to similarly situated persons. The impugned action is quashed and the respondents are directed to release the pay scale of Rs. 1775 – 2200/- to the petitioner from the due date within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of the judgment. With the aforesaid observations the present petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. July 29, 2009 (PK)