IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition (T) No. 14846 of 2008. Date of decision: July 9, 2009. Ram Kumar and others …..Petitioners. Vs. State of H.P. & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. A.K.Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). The petitioners had filed O.A. No. 632 of 2007 before erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal). The Tribunal was abolished and O.A. No. 632 of 2007 was transferred to this court in view of Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (transfer of decided and pending cases and applications) Act, 2008, on transfer the O.A. No. 632 of 2007 was registered as CWP(T) No. 14846 of 2008. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are serving as Cooks on regular basis in the department of health and they are getting the pay scale of Class IV employees. Some similarly situated Cooks namely Chet Ram and others had filed an Original Application Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… before the erstwhile Tribunal praying therein that they were entitled to pay scale of Rs.400-600 w.e.f. 1.3.1980, Rs.950-1800 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and Rs.3120-5160 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The original application filed by those Cooks was allowed. The State against the decision of the Tribunal had filed CWP No. 171 of 2004 in this Court, which was dismissed and the order of the Tribunal was upheld. Thereafter the benefit was given to those Cooks, who had filed the petition. 3. The petitioners have pleaded that they are also entitled to same benefit as was given to Chet Ram and others, but the department has refused to grant the said benefit to the petitioners on the ground that petitioners were not parties in the original application filed by Chet Ram and others. The case of the petitioners is that the refusal of department to give benefit flowing from the decision rendered in Chet Ram and others to the petitioners is arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, and, therefore, the petitioners have prayed that they are entitled to same benefit as was given to Chet Ram and others. 4. The petition was contested by respondents No. 1 to 3 and objection of limitation has been taken. The petitioners are seeking benefit from back dates. The higher pay scale of Rs.400-600 was allowed to 26 Cooks of Health Department, who had filed OA No. 1687 of 2000 and who were also respondents in CWP No. 171 of 2004. The judgements delivered and passed in above original application and civil writ petition are based on the judgements delivered and passed in the cases of Cooks of Police, Hospitality, Tourism Departments as well as on the basis of decision of Cooks of …3… Governor’s House where specialized cooking is required to be performed. In the Health Department, a very simple diet is required to be cooked and hence the work is not comparable to the work of cooking prevailing in the aforesaid departments. The respondents thus contested the claim of the petitioners and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied judgement dated 24.2.2009 passed in CWP(T) No. 3420 of 2008 (OA No. 1123/96). In the judgement dated 24.2.2009, learned Single Judge has noticed the judgement dated 17.11.2005 passed in CWP No. 171 of 2004 titled as State of H.P. Vs. Chet Ram and others and decision in OA No. 1687 of 2000 titled as Chet Ram and others vs. State of H.P, as also the notification dated 18.7.2006 and held that petitioners of CWP (T) No. 3420 of 2008 are entitled to benefits of aforesaid decision and notification issued by the State. In reply, the respondents have stated that petitioners in OA No. 1687 of 2000 were Cooks of the Health Department. In the present case also, the petitioners are working in the Health Department. Therefore, in light of judgement dated 24.2.2009, the petition is allowed and it is directed that petitioners shall be entitled to such all those benefits which have been accorded to the employees in terms of the aforesaid decisions and notification. The arrears be paid to the petitioners within a period of four months from today. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. July 9, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.