IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 6986/2008 (OA 3435/2K) Date of Decision : May 15, 2010 Himachal Ayurvedic Medical Officers’ Association and another Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners : Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. For the respondents : Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. for the respondents/State. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) It is not in dispute that the State Government had constituted a Committee of experts to examine the petitioners’ grievance for parity in pay scale with other similarly situated employees in the other departments of the State. It is also not in dispute that the Committee of experts had met and recommended certain structural changes and grant of pay scales to the Ayurvedic Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Medical Officers some of whom have approached this Court by way of this petition. This is also evident from Annexure A-5. The State however has not acted and taken a decision on the same. 2. This petition was filed on 17.10.2000. During the pendency of the petition only part of the petitioners’ grievance stands considered and some payments released. Major grievance remains. The respondent-State has also not dealt with the same in the reply. 3. In this view of the matter, without going into the merits of the petition a direction is issued to the respondent/State to consider the recommendations made by the Committee and take a decision thereupon. The needful be positively done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The respondent/State shall take into account the fact that similarly situated persons in different departments of the State have been accorded benefits which is far in excess than what stands accorded to the petitioners. 4. Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, learned Counsel for the petitioners has invited my attention to following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in support of the case: State of Kerala versus B. Renjith Kumar and others, (2008) 12 SCC 219; Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation & Ors. versus G. S. Uppal & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 2152 and New Delhi Municipal Council versus P. P. Garg and another, (2007) 12 SCC 541. While 3 deciding, the respondent/State shall take into account the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court. 5. With the aforesaid observations the present petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. May 15, 2010 (PK)