IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPs No. 8882-I, 8885-I, 8886-I, 8887-I, 8924-C, 8925-C, 8926-C of 2011. Decided on: 18th October, 2011. 1. CWP No. 8882-I of 2011 Minakshi Sood Vs. State of H.P. & anr. 2. CWP No. 8885-I of 2011 Rameshwar Singh Vs. State of H.P. & anr. 3. CWP No. 8886-I of 2011 Rajeshwar Verma Vs. State of H.P. & anr. 4. CWP No. 8887-I of 2011 Om Prakash Vs. State of H.P. & anr. 5. CWP No. 8924-C of 2011 Mohan Lal Sharma Vs. State of H.P. & anr. 6. CWP No. 8925-C of 2011 Lal Chand Chandel Vs. State of H.P. & anr. 7. CWP No. 8926-C of 2011 Hari Prakash Vs. State of H.P. & anr. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioners : Mr. Narender Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. Ankush Dass Dood, Addl. Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “i) to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent department to release the service benefits 2 for the period rendered by the petitioners on tenure basis including all consequential benefits.” 2. The petitioners claim the benefit of increments during the tenure 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. & others. 3. Learned Deputy Advocate General points out that the factual aspects are to be verified by the competent authority. Petitioners submit that they would file appropriate representation(s) furnishing all factual details before the competent authority within a period of one month from today. It is always open for them to do so. 4. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondent concerned to examine the matter and verify the facts in the light of the judgment referred to above and take appropriate action thereon 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 the copy of the judgment referred to above by the petitioner(s). 5. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 18th October, 2011. (Justice Sanjay Karol), (kck) Judge. 3