IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No. 5254/2008 and 5255, 5256, 5258, 5261, 5273, 5275 and 5277 of 2008 Reserved on: 23.2.2010 Decided on : 23.2. 2010 _____________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 5254/2008 Devi Singh. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. 2. CWP No. 5255/2008 Chhattar Singh. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. 3. CWP No. 5256/2008 Baldev Ram. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. 4. CWP No. 5258/2008 Brij Lal. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. 5. CWP No. 5261/2008 Pritam Singh. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. 2 6. CWP No. 5273/2008 Sunder Singh. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. 7. CWP No. 5275/2008 Prem Lal. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. 8. CWP No. 5277/2008 Krishan Lal. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Advocate. (in all the petitions) For the Respondents: Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General. (in all the petitions). _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. Petitioners have sought directions to the respondents to count the period of services they had rendered initially under the Panchayat Department and thereafter under the Panchayat Samitis 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 3 and to grant them pensionary benefits. Similar question was adjudicated upon by the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA (D) No. 283/1996. The operative portion of the judgment dated 8.5.2002 reads thus: “I find that the facts of the present case are materially identical as those discussed in original application No. 1576/1993 except that in that original application services of the applicant rendered in District Board has not been counted while in the present case services rendered in the Panchayat Samiti had been counted in same department in respect of those employees who were absorbed in the Rural Development Department but have not been counted in respect of those absorbed in the Panchayat Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The present case, therefore, is on better footing than the one in original application No. 1576/1993. As such this original application is fully covered under the judgment of original application No. 1576/1993 as well as the case law discussed above and, therefore, is allowed. The respondents are directed to release all the retiral benefits in favour of the applicant after counting the service rendered by him in the Panchayat Samiti as also to give him the benefit of pay scale revised w.e.f. 11.1.1986. The applicant will also be entitled to an interest @ 12% on delayed payment of retiral benefit w.e.f. 1.1.1992 i.e. after two months from the date of his retirement. This order be implemented within a period of three months from today. Parties to bear their own costs.” 4 The State Government assailed this judgment passed by the learned Tribunal in OA (D) No. 283/1996 dated 8.5.2002 by way of CWP No. 1802/2002 in this Court. The same was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 31.7.2008. In other words, the judgment rendered by the Tribunal was upheld by this Court. It is also jointly represented by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties that the present lis is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the learned Tribunal in OA (D) No. 283/1996 dated 8.5.2002 and judgment rendered in CWP No. 1802/2002 dated 31.7.2008. Consequently, the petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to release all the retiral benefits to the petitioners after counting their services rendered by them in the Panchayat Department/Panchayat Samitis. They are also held entitled to interest @ 8% per annum on delayed payment of retiral benefits after two months from the date of their respective retirement. The judgment be implemented within three months from today. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 23.2.2010. *awasthi*