IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No.: 5832 of 2008 Date of decision: 16.8.2010 Ram Dayal … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Dhruv Shaunak vice counsel. For the respondents: Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner by means of this writ petition has prayed for the grant of the following amongst other reliefs:- (ii) That the respondents be directed to grant the applicant’s increments to which he is eligible on 15.8.1972, 1.1.1978, 1.1.1986 and 1.1.1996. (iii) That the respondents be also directed to grant the applicant’s TA bill amounting to Rs.1071/- as the same has not been paid to him till date. 2. As far as the first relief claimed by the petitioner is concerned, it appears that there was a misconception in the mind of the petitioner that 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 every time when the pay was revised he was to get an additional increment. Alongwith the petition the petitioner had not annexed any document in support of his claim. Alongwith the reply the respondent-Board has placed on record office order dated 29.7.1997 wherein details have been given as to how the petitioner’s pay has been fixed at each stage. 3. I have gone through the same and find that in the year 1972 the petitioner had reached the top of his scale and therefore no increment in the scale could have been given. Thereafter, he has been given increments each year and also in the years 1976, 1986 and 1996 as and when they fell due and his pay was also fixed in the revised pay scale. 4. As far as the second claim is concerned, according to the department no claim for TA was ever submitted by the petitioner. 5. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 16th August, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.