1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 10746 of 2011-E Decided on: 7.12.2011 Asha Sharma, D/o Shri Shankar Dass Sharma, R/o Village & P.O. Baghar, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P., presently posted at High School Khagna, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla. ....Petitioner Versus 1. State of Himachal Pradesh through its Principal Secretary (Education to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-171002. 2. Director of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-171101. ....Respondents Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or directions to the respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Suneel Awasthi, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) This writ petition is filed with the following prayer: 2 “(a) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to extend the benefit of due and admissible merger of 50% Dearness Allowance with basic pay as per memorandum dated 10-6-2005 to the petitioner by further directing the respondents to pay the arrears with all consequential bnenfits to the petitioner in interest in view of the judgment titled as “Nek Ram Vs. State of H.P.” i.e CWP (T) 14228/2008. (b) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to grant the revised pay scale to the petitioner form the date of her initial appointment on contract basis and till the date of regularization and arrears accrued thereunder be paid with interest @ 9% per annum, in the interest of justice.” 2. The petitioner submits that she is similarly situated as the petitioners in the decision rendered by this Court in CWP (T) No. 14232 of 2008, titled Nek Ram and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 17.11.2009. It is further submitted that the decision has also been implemented. In case the petitioner is similarly situated as the petitioners in the judgment, referred to above, similar treatment shall be given to the petitioner herein also, after verifying the facts, within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this 3 judgment alongwith a copy of the writ petition and a copy of the judgment, referred to above, by the petitioner before the second respondent/competent authority. 3. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. December 7, 2011 (Justice Rajiv Sharma), (sck/hl) Judge.