IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 9106 of 2008 Date of decision: 20.04.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Jagdish Chand & another. .....Petitioners. Versus The State of H.P. & another. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For respondent No. 1: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. AG. For respondent No. 2: Mr. G.D. Sharma, Advocate. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7(i) and (ii): “ i) That the provision of notification dated 31.5.2001 (Annexure A-7) issued by the respondent No.1 vide which the post of Junior Assistants have been declared to be filled up by placement to the extent of 100% out of the Clerks and provisions of clarificatory instructions issued vide letter dated 3.11.2001 (Annexure A-8) may kindly be declared illegal, ultravirus, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, unconstitutional and unsustainable in the eyes of law. ii) The office order dated 27.9.2001 (Annexure A-6) and order dated 14.12.2001/8.1.2002 (Annexure A-9) issued by the respondent No.2 in pursuance of the notification dated 31.5.2001 (Annexure A-7) and clarificatory instructions dated 3.11.2001 (Annexure A-8) may kindly be quashed.” 2. In reply, on behalf of respondent No.2, the following stand has been taken vide para 3: “3. That in reply to para No. 3 it is admitted that the applicants have been ordered to be placed as Junior Assistants. The respondent Board has followed and adopted the amended notification dated 31.5.2001 whereby respondent No. 1 has amended 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... H.P. Civil Services (Revised Pay) rules, 1998 (Annexure A-7) clarificatory instructions have been issued by respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 03.11.2001 (Annexure A-8) and respondent No. 2 has fixed the pay of the applicants vide office orders dated 14.12.2001/08.01.2002 (Annexure A-9) in pursuance to the instructions/clarifications issued by respondent no. 1. No recoveries have been ordered upto 30.5.2001.” 3. There is no reply on behalf of respondent No. 1. However, at the time of hearing the learned Deputy Advocate General has adopted the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 2. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits at the very outset that the case of the petitioners is covered under judgment dated 30th November, 2010, rendered by this Court in CWP(T) No. 8451 of 2008, titled Ram Lal Sharma and others vs. State of H.P and another. 5. In view of the above, if on facts, the case of the petitioners is covered under the judgment referred to hereinabove, in CWP (T) No.8451 of 2008, and they are similarly situate, they shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and the benefit of the said judgment shall be extended to them within three months from the date of production of copies of this judgment and the judgment referred to hereinabove by the petitioners, after affording an opportunity of being heard, if so desired. 6. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 20th April, 2011 (virender)