IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 5578 of 2011 with CWPs No. 5587 and CWP No. 5614 of 2011 Decided on: 28.07.2011. __________________________________________________________ 1. Ram Pyari Vs. State of H.P. & Others. 2. Satpal Sharma Vs. State of H.P. & others. 3. Satya Prasad Vs. State of H.P. & others. __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Mr. Sanjay Jaswal and Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl.AG and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G. ___________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral). The petitioners claim the benefit of ad hoc service followed by regular service for the purpose of pension and increments. According to the petitioners, the issue is covered in their favour by the judgment of this Court rendered in LPA No.36 of 2010, Sita Ram vs. State of H.P. & Ors.. 2. 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 representations 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. 3. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent concerned to examine the matter, after verifying 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 petitioners. 4. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice. (Justice V.K. Sharma) July 28, 2011. Judge. (cr/virender) 2