IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 893 of 2009 Decided on : 9.11.2009. Om Prakash Mehta and others …Petitioners. Versus State of H.P.& another ....Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioners : Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl.A.G. and Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were appointed as Physical Education Teachers in the Education Department of State of Himachal Pradesh and they are entitled to three advance increments. It has also been submitted that Babu Ram and others had filed Original Application No. 239 of 1991 before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal claiming three advance increments in view of notification issued by the Governor of Himachal Pradesh. The Tribunal dismissed the petition, Babu Ram and others filed CWP No. 511 of 2001 in the High Court which was allowed by a Division Bench on 13.5.2008. The benefit of judgment dated 13.5.2008 was confined to Babu Ram and others but 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 similarly situated persons like petitioners were not given the benefit of said judgment. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the case of the petitioners is completely covered by the judgment dated 13.5.2008 in CWP No. 511 of 2001 and judgment dated 30.4.2009 in CWP (T) No. 2655 of 2008 and judgment dated 11.9.2009 in CWP No. 1298 of 2009, prayer has been made that three advance increments may be ordered to be given to the petitioners. 2. The respondents have filed the reply and have submitted that the judgment rendered by Division Bench in CWP No. 511 of 2001 on 13.5.2008, judgment dated 30.4.2009 in CWP (T) No. 2655 of 2008 and judgment dated 11.9.2009 passed in CWP No. 1298 of 2009 are in personam and not judgments in-rem. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has however, not disputed the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the present petition is completely covered by judgment dated 13.5.2008 in CWP No. 511 of 2001, judgment dated 30.4.2009 in CWP (T) No. 2655 of 2008 and judgment dated 11.9.2009 in CWP No. 1298 of 2009. In brief, there is no dispute that the present petition is covered by judgment dated 13.5.2008 and judgment dated 30.4.2009 as well as judgment dated 11.9.2009 referred above. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioners are held entitled to the relief in light of judgment dated 13.5.2008, 30.4.2009 and judgment dated 11.9.2009, noticed above. The petition is disposed of on above terms. CMP No. 1586 of 2009 Infructuous. ( Kuldip Singh ), November 9, 2009 Judge. (GR)