IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 6215/2010 Decided on: 8.10.2010. Surat Singh Guleria and another. ...Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. ... Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. Justice Rajiv Sharma (oral) Present petition has been filed with the following prayers: (i) “That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondent department. (ii) That the respondent department may kindly be directed to grant three advance increments to the petitioners in terms of letter dated 5th December, 1986 as contained in Annexure P-4 and letter dated 20.4.1987 as contained in Annexure P-3 with all consequential benefits. (iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay interest to the present petitioners at the rate of 8% per annum till date as the respondents have been kept away the present petitioners from the financial benefits for which they are entitled.” Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No. 2 2. Case of the petitioners, in a nutshell, is that their case is covered by the judgments rendered by this Court in CWP No. 1298 of 2009, titled as Daya Ram Thakur and others Versus State of H.P. and others and CWP No 1303/2009, titled Gian Singh Bisht and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another decided on 12.5.2010. 3. Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma has brought to the notice of this Court that these two judgments have been implemented by the respondents. 4. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for granting them three advance increments in view of the principles laid down in the above noted judgments. Needful be done within a period of four months after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioners. 5. In view of above directions, the petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma) Judge. 8.10.2010. *awasthi*