IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 9242 of 2011 & connected matters. Decided on: November 8, 2011. 1. CWP No. 9242 of 2011-E. Parma Nand Vrs. State of H.P. & ors. 2. CWP No. 9243 of 2011-E. Salochana Devi Vrs. State of H.P. & ors. 3. CWP No. 9245 of 2011-E. Mast Ram Vrs. State of H.P. & ors. 4. CWP No. 9246 of 2011-E. Jiwan Kaur Vrs. State of H.P. & ors. 5. CWP No. 9259 of 2011-F. Madan Singh Vrs. State of H.P. & ors. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioners: Mr. R.S.Chandel, Advocate, vice counsel. For the Respondents: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. AG. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) All these Writ Petitions have been filed with identical prayers. One set of prayers is extracted below: “i) That the respondents may be directed to release/restore the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925 to the petitioner from the date of initial appointment and then from the date of regularization; as revised from time to time w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and then w.e.f. 1.1.2006 till day as OT/Shastri teacher; without discriminating the petitioner when, this pay scale has been restored and released to Sh. Mohinder Singh and many other similarly placed Shastri/OT teachers as in ground (c) above; on the basis of the judgments passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWP(T) 2903/2008 vide Annexures P-4; LPA No. 107/2009 dated 30.3.2010 vide Annexure P-5 which also stands implemented as per letter dated 31.7.2010 vide Annexure P- 6 forthwith. ii) That the action of reducing the pay scale of the petitioner from Rs. 1640-2925 to Rs. 1500-2700 illegally may kindly be quashed and set-aside. 2 iii) That the respondents may be directed to restore the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925 as revised from time to time, to the petitioner with all the consequential benefits forthwith. iv) That the action of the respondents in not acting upon the legal notice dated 3.10.2011 vide Annexure P-7 and in not releasing the benefits in terms of the judgments vide Annexures P- 4 and Annexure P-5 may kindly be held as discriminatory, malafide and illegal.” 2. It is evident that the similarly situated persons have already been granted the benefits as can be seen from Annexures P-4 and P-5. It is submitted that Annexure P-5 judgment passed by this court in LPA No. 107 of 2009, titled State of H.P. & Ors. versus Mohinder Singh, on 30.3.2010, has become final. There will be a direction to the second respondent/competent authority to take appropriate action in the cases of the petitioners herein also, without discriminating them, within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment alongwith a copy of the writ petition by the petitioners. Consequential benefits to which the petitioners are found eligible shall also be disbursed within another one month. 3. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending application (s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. November 8, 2011. ( Justice Sanjay Karol), (karan/vs) Judge.