IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP-T No. 2972 of 2008 Decided on : 01.04.2011 Brij Lal Sharma ..… Petitioners. 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 Petitioner No.1. : None. For Petitioners No.2 and 3 : Mr. P.P.Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General. V.K.Sharma, Judge (oral). Earlier all the three petitioners were represented by Ms Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. The learned counsel states at the bar that she is no more representing the petitioners, who had taken the brief from her along with no objection to engage another counsel. 2. The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide paras 7(i) to (iii):- (i) That the order dated 6.3.2003 (Annexure A-11) vide which the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 representations of the applicants have been rejected by the respondent department may be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the appointments of the applicants to be extent it regularize their services as Electrician Gr.II be declared as null and applicants may be held in continuous service of the respondent department a s a regular Foreman on regular cadre from the date of their entitlement for regularization with all consequential benefits. (iii) That the respondents may be directed to pay the difference of wages between the post of Foreman (Electrical) and Electrician Gr.II to the applicants along with interest at some nationalized bank rates.” 3. In reply, the respondents have taken the following stand vide paras 1 and 2 of the preliminary submissions:- “1. That the applicants at Sr. No. 1, 2, 3 were working in this department as Assistant Foreman from 1-1-1990 to 30-4- 1995 and thereafter as Foreman upto 3-12- 2002. These applicants in their original O.A. No. 139/2001 made prayer to regularize them on the post of J.E.(Electrical) and on the other hand, they have filed this O.A. vide No. 769/2003 wherein the applicants in their affidavits declared that nothing is concealed in their present petition. This contradicts the fact i.e. when an original petition is pending in the Hon’ble H.P. Administrative Tribunal, the present petition not maintainable and deserves to be 3 dismissed on this s core, as the two demands, i.e. one for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) and other for Foreman (Electrical) is not admissible under law, as the applicants have to opt for one post at one time. 2. That the present application is not maintainable in its present form particularly when the earlier O.A. on same cause of action is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Tribunal. It is further submitted here that as per the policy of the Government the incumbents working as Foreman Grade-I or Electrician Grade-I and II can be regularized as electrician Grade II only. Copy of letter dated 12-9-2002 is annexed herewith as Annexure-R-I. It is further submitted here that the services of applicant can be regularized as Electrician Grade-II only and not as Junior Engineer or Foreman Electrical as alleged.” 4. The learned counsel for petitioners No. 2 and 3 submits at the very outset that the case of the petitioners is covered under judgment dated 29.12.2007, rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Gauri Dutt & ors. Vs. State of H.P, Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 366. 5. In view of the above, if on facts, the case of the petitioners is covered under the judgment referred to here-in-above and they are similarly situate, they shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and the benefit of said judgment shall be extended to them 4 alongwith consequential benefits, if any, at par with similarly situate persons namely, Sanjeev Kumar, Pardeep Kumar , Rakesh Kumar and Anurag Sharma, who had also initially joined employment of the respondent- Board as Assistant Foreman, which post was later on re-designated as Foreman and were later on regularized as Foreman, within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioners, after affording an opportunity of being heard to them, if so desired, 6. The petition, as also pending CMP(s), if any, stand disposed of. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 1st April, 2011. Lsp*