IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 11076 of 2008 Decided on : 23.11.2011 ________________________________________________ Vinod Mehta … Petitioner. 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 the petitioner : Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General, with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge (oral). The petition has been filed on the following substantive prayers vide para 7 (i) to (iii):- “(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay revised pay scale of Rs. 6400-10400/- to the applicant w.e.f. 15/12/1998 along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the due date till the actual payment. (ii) That the respondents may be restrained from withdrawing revised pay scale of Rs.6400-10,400/- which is 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 being paid to the applicant w.e.f. 23/5/2003. (iii) That the Annexure A-2 dated 14/10/2003 may be held illegal and be quashed and set aside.” 2. There is no reply as yet. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the very outset that whereas prayer (i) is covered under the judgment dated 15.06.2010, rendered by a learned Single Judge of this court in CWP(T) No. 781 of 2008, Rakesh Chand and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, prayers (ii) and (iii) are covered under the judgment dated 17.11.2009, passed by a Division Bench of this court in CWP(T) No. 14232 of 2008, Nek Ram and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. 4. In view of the above, if on facts, the case of the petitioner is covered under the judgments referred to hereinabove in CWP(T) Nos. 781 of 2008 and 14232 of 2008 and the same have attained finality and have been implemented and the petitioner is similarly situate, he shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and benefit of the said judgments along with consequential benefits, if any, shall be extended to him within three months from the date of production of copies of this 3 judgment and the judgments referred to above, by the petitioner before respondents No. 1 & 2/competent authority. 5. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any, in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. November 23, 2011. (Lsp)