CWP(T) No. 16655 of 2008 05.04.2010 Present: Mr. Ramakant Sharma and Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Additional Advocate General with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for the respondents. The petitioners, who are working as Lecturers on contract basis in different subjects on the establishment of respondents No. 1 to 3 and 5, particularly respondent No. 5, are aggrieved by denial of the benefit of 50% merger of dearness allowance towards the contractual emoluments payable to them, have filed and maintained the present petition with a prayer for issuance of a direction to the respondents to grant such benefit to them. The record reveals that though the benefit of merger of 50% of dearness allowance was initially granted in favour of the petitioners vide Office Memorandum dated 10th June, 2005, Annexure P-6, it was later on withdrawn vide letter dated 29th September, 2005, A-7. Admittedly, withdrawal of such benefit was challenged by certain affected persons similarly situate as the petitioners and this court vide judgment dated 17.11.2009 passed in CWP(T) No. 14232 of 2008, titled Nek Ram and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, has held as under: “Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure A-2 dated 24.9.2005 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioners to exercise their option whether they would like to be regulated under letter dated 9.5.2006 or as per the terms and conditions of their contract which they have entered into in the year 2000. It is made clear on the basis of clarifications No. 1 and 2 that the emoluments which the petitioners were getting before 9.5.2006, including merger of 50% dearness allowance with basic pay shall not be reduced. In case the petitioners exercise their option to be governed under order 9.5.2006, the consequences would ensue and they will be paid their salary as per this letter dated 9.5.2006. No costs.” :-2-: Thus it is a covered matter. The controversy raised by the petitioners by way of the present petition is squarely covered under the above judgment dated 17.11.2009 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court. This position is also admitted on behalf of the respondents by way of instructions dated 2nd April, 2010, brought on record by the learned Deputy Advocate General today. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Consequently, Annexures A-7 and A-8 are set aside. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioners for grant of revised pay scale and other benefits at par with the similarly situate employees strictly in terms of the aforesaid judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP(T) No. 14232 of 2008, titled Nek Ram and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, with all consequential benefits. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. No orders as to costs. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 5th April, 2010 (Virender)