CWP(T) No. 6615/2008 (OA 1337/2000) 20.04.2010 Present: Mr. Y. P. S. Dhaulta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. R. M. Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 & 3. Mr. Lokender Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. According to Mr. R. K. Sharma, learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General the matter in issue is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court on 1.4.2009 in CWP(T) No. 3188 of 2008, titled as Shri Manmohan Parshad versus State of H.P. and others. Copy of the said decision has been placed on record. He further submits that the petitioner in the instant case is similarly situated. Hence the present petition needs to be allowed and the relief accorded to the other similarly situated persons is also to be accorded to the present petitioner. In Manmohan Parshad (supra) this Court had passed the following directions: “For the aforesaid reasons, the respondents action in ignoring the petitioner’s claim for being promoted to the post of Head Teacher is illegal. Private respondents admittedly were junior to the petitioner. However, after a long lapse of time, it would not be desirable, at this stage to quash their promotion as Head Teachers. They have since retired. Interest of justice would suffice, if under the facts and circumstances the respondents are directed to also promote the petitioner as head teacher w.e.f. 4.1.1996 with all consequential benefits. Ordered accordingly. The respondents shall take action and pay the arrears within a period of our months from today. If however, the payment is not made within the said period, thereafter the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9%. The petition is disposed of accordingly” -2- In view of the above it is directed that the present petitioner shall also be entitled to the same benefits. The State is directed to take necessary action immediately. Present petition as such is disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. April 20, 2010 (PK)