1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 11549 of 2011 Decided on: 29.12.2011 1. Om Parkash, S/o Sh. Balak Ram, R/o Village Bhawan, P.O. Kot Tungal, Sub Tehsil Kotli, District Mandi, H.P. presently working as Lecturer-Economics in Government Senior Secondary School, Gaggal, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. 2. Sanjay Thakur, S/o Sh. Guru Dev Singh, R/o Village Saloun, P.O. Marhi, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. presently working as Lecturer-Economics in Government Senior Secondary School Jamni, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. 3. Punam Kumari, D/o Sh. Jagan Nath, R/o VPO Rakhoh, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. presently working as Lecturer-English in Government Senior Secondary School, Jamni, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. ....Petitioners Versus 1. State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2. 2. The Director of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. 3. Deputy Director of Higher Education, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. ....Respondents Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. 2 For the petitioners : M/s R.L. Chaudhary and Daleep Singh Kaith, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General, Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed mainly with the following prayers: “(i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent to pay the revised pay scale of 1996 and 2006 for the contractual service of the petitioners, since after regularization, they are getting the revised pay scale, but during the contractual period, same was not given to him. (ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to count the contractual services of the petitioner for increment and for pensionary benefits.” 2. The first issue is the subject matter of LPA No. 105 of 2010. The writ petition is disposed of making it clear that appropriate action in the case of the petitioners shall also be taken 3 in accordance with the decision of LPA No. 105 of 2010, subject to its finality, within another two months. 3. Secondly, the petitioners claim the benefit of increments during the tenure/contractual period of service rendered by them and also count the said period for the purpose of pension. According to the petitioners, the issue is covered in their favour by the judgment of this Court dated 16.12.2010 rendered in CWP No. 4550 of 2010 titled as Ravi Kumar vs. State of H.P. & another and other connected matters. It is for the respondents to examine the matter. Therefore, there will be a direction to the respondent concerned to examine the matter in the light of the judgment referred to above and consequential benefits shall be disbursed to the petitioners within a period of four months from the date of the production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition and a copy of the judgment, referred to above. 4. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. December 29, 2011 (Justice Dev Dasrshan Sud), ( ms/hl) Judge.