IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 9080 of 2008 Date of decision: 29.04.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Gopal Singh Thakur & others. .....Petitioners. Versus The State of H.P. & another. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, vice counsel. For the respondents: Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. AG, for respondent No. 1. Mr. G.D. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7(i) and (ii): “7(i) That the provision of Notifications dated 31.5.2001 (Annexure A-10), issued by the respondent No. 1 vide which the post of Junior Assistants have been declared to be filled up by placement to extent of 100% out of the Clerks and the provisions of notification dated 3.11.2001 (Annexure A-11) may kindly be declared illegal, ultravirus, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, unconstitutional and unsustainable in the eyes of law. (ii) That the office order dated 27.9.2001 (Annexure A-9) issued by the respondent no. 2 in pursuance of the notification dated 31.5.2001 (Annexure A-10), may kindly be quashed.” 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. .....2..... 2. In reply, on behalf of respondent No. 2 the following stand has been taken vide paras 3 and 6(xii) on merits: “3 That in reply to para No. 3 it is admitted that the applicants have been ordered to be placed as Junior Assistants. The respondent No. 2 has followed and adopted the amended notification dated 31.5.2001 whereby respondent No. 1 has amended H.P. Civil Services (Revised Pay) rules 1998 Annexure A-10. As no order regarding the recovery has been passed and moreover no pay fixation has been ordered by the respondent No. 1 and 2 and vide Annexure A-11 State has already ordered not to make recoveries upto 30.5.2001. 6(xii) That the contents of the para are admitted to the extent that respondent No. 2 issued a office order dated 22.4.2000 (Annexure A-7) in pursuance to the clarification issued by the respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 18.2.2000 (Annexure A-6) on the recommendation of the DPC. Rest of the contents of para are denied moreover no recovery upto 30.5.2001 will be made from the applicants in accordance with the clarification issued by the Govt. of H.P. vide letter No. FIN(PR)B(7)-1/98-III dated Shimla 171002 the 3rd November, 2001 Annexure A-11.” 3. Respondent No. 1 has also adopted the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 2. 4. The learned vice counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits at the very outset that the case of the petitioners is covered under judgment dated 30th November, 2010, rendered by this Court in CWP(T) No. 8451 of 2008, titled Ram Lal Sharma and others vs. State of H.P. and another. 5. In view of the above, if on facts, the case of the petitioners is covered under the judgment referred to hereinabove, in CWP(T) No. 8451 of 2008 and they are similarly situate, they shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and the .....3..... benefit of the said judgment shall be extended to them within three months from the date of production of copies of this judgment and the judgment referred to hereinabove by the petitioners. 6. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending CMP(s), if any. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 29th April, 2011 (virender)