IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P No. 1160 of 2009 Dated of Decision: 12.7.2011. Channan Ram and others Petitioner. Versus State of H.P & others Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate . For the Respondents : Mr. A.K Bansal, Addl. A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 3. None for respondent No.4. ________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh,,J (oral) : The petitioners in the present petition have claimed mainly the following relief:- “a). Issue writ of mandamus against the respondents 1 to 4 with direction to release the gratuity, leave encashment and other benefits along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum for delayed payment.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were class-IV employees in GGDSD, College, Baijnath, Tehsil Baijnath, District kangra, H.P. They retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation on different dates w.e.f the year 2005 to 2007. The respondent No. 4 is management of the said college. 3. In fact the college aforesaid was a govt- aided college, which was taken over by the State Government vide notification No. EDN-A-chha-(15)-4/2006 dated 14-1-2007. The petitioners were regular employees of the college. 4. The dispute of the petitioners is with regard to release of their gratuity, leave encashment and other retrial benefits which were not given to them. They made a representation to the quarter concerned, but it turned deaf ears. 5. There is a communication dated 4.6.1994 addressed by the respondent No. 2 Directorate of Education addressed, to the Principal of college informing that in the event of retirement or death, gratuity of sum calculated at the rate of half month’s pay for each completed years of service is allowed to regular grantee regular private college lecturers/non-teaching members of staff subject to conditions mentioned therein. 6. In CWP No. 60 of 2006 Jagdev Katoch Versus State of H.P and others , Jagdev Katoch was a teacher. He was also declined the similar benefits by the respondents. He filed the above writ petition and vide judgment dated 20.6.2008, the entire benefits were granted to him by this Court. According to the respondents though the case of the petitioner is identical to the case of Jagdev Katoch, but according to them the above judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge was assailed in LPA before this Court. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated at bar that LPA No. 23 of 2009 aforesaid arising from the judgment of Jagdev Katoch and others stands finally decided by the Principal DB of this Court whereby the judgment of Hon’ble Single Judge has been up-held. Consequently, the LPA aforesaid along with the other connected matters were dismissed. This position is not disputed. 8. Therefore, against the above background, the respondents are hereby directed to grant the relief sought to the petitioner in terms of judgment passed by the Principal DB, in bunch matters CWP(T) No. 7175 of 2008, LPA No. 114 of 2008, CWP No. 2981 of 2008 and LPAs No. 17,23,4 and 5 of 2009 dated 7.7.2010 within a period of two months from the receipt of copy of this judgment. 3. The writ petition is disposed of, in the above terms. July 12, 2011 (Surinder Singh), (priti) Judge.