IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No.8910 of 2008 Decided on: 24.8.2011 Sh. Baldev Chand .…Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents. _____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioners : Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General. V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7 (i) to (v):- “(i). That the respondents may be directed to give the benefits of the service rendered from 4.8.62 to 31.10.68 for the purposes of seniority as per the OM’s vide Annexure A-3 to A-6 and the law or otherwise forthwith. (ii) That the respondents may be directed to give the benefits of proficiency increments (on the basis of the seniority of 6.8.1962) on completion of 18 years of service w.e.f. 1.1.1986, and on completion of 24 & 32 years of service under ACP w.e.f. 1.1.96 with all arrears & retrial benefits from 1.2.2002 and thereafter forthwith. (iii) That the respondents may be directed to consider and promote the applicant as Head Teacher, Centre Head Teacher and Block Primary Education Officer, from the date the juniors incumbents appointed after 6.8.62 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No 2 were promoted with all consequential benefits, including retrial benefits forthwith. (iv) That once the applicant had acquired JBT training on 31.10.66 while working on temporary basis but was regularized belatedly on 31.10.66 while working on temporary basis but was regularized belatedly on 31.10.68 then, the respondents may be directed to treat the applicant as regular JBT from 31.10.66 and to give seniority and all consequential benefits including retrial benefits forthwith. (v) That in case the relief(s) (i) to (iv) are inadmissible on merits (not conceding) then also respondents may be directed to release the withheld proficiency increments due on completion of 18/24 & 32 years, on the basis of the seniority of 31.10.68 with all consequential benefits including retrial benefits forthwith.” 2. There is no reply as yet. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits at the very outset that the case of the petitioner is covered under two judgments of this Court dated 17.6.2008 in CWP No. 319/1997, Hira Lal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another and 1.4.2009 in CWP (T) No. 3188/2008 (OA No. 878/1996), Manmohan Parshad Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. 3. In view of the above, if on facts, the case of the petition is covered under the judgments referred to herein above in CWP No. 319/1997, Hira Lal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another & CWP (T) No. 3188/2008 (OA No. 878/1996) Manmohan Parshad Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., and the same has attained finality and implemented and the petitioner is similarly situate, he shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and benefit of the said judgments along with consequential benefits, if any, shall be extended to 3 him within three months from the date of production of copies of this judgment and the aforesaid judgments dated 17.6.2008 in CWP No. 319/1997 and 1.4.2009 in CWP(T) No. 3188/2008 (OA No. 878/1996) by the petitioner before the respondents/competent authorities. 4. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. 24th August, 2011 (krs)