IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2842 of 2009 Decided on : 11.9.2009. Kishor Chand and others …Petitioners. Versus State of H.P.& Others ....Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioners : Mr. A. K.Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl.A.G. and Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) The pleaded case of the petitioners is that they were / are the Physical Education Teachers serving in the Education Department under the State of Himachal Pradesh and they are entitled to three advance increments. It has been stated that Babu Ram and others filed Original Application No. 239 of 1991 before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for claiming three advance increments in view of notification issued by the Governor of Himachal Pradesh. The Tribunal dismissed the petition, Babu Ram and others filed CWP No. 511 of 2001 in the High Court which was allowed by Division Bench on 13.5.2008. The benefit of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 judgment dated 13.5.2008 has been confined to Babu Ram and others but similarly situated persons like petitioners were not given the benefit of said judgment. According to petitioners, the case of the petitioners is covered by the judgment dated 13.5.2008 passed in CWP No. 511 of 2001 and they are entitled to three advance increments. 2. The respondents have not filed reply. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has stated that the present petition has been connected with CWP No.1298 of 2009 and in that petition the reply has been filed. In CWP No. 1298 of 2009 in the reply stand has been taken that judgment rendered by Division Bench in CWP No. 511 of 2001 on 13.5.2008 is in personam and that judgment is not a judgment in-rem. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has however not disputed the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the present petition is covered by judgment dated 13.5.2008 passed in CWP No. 511 of 2001. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed on record a copy of judgment dated 30.4.2009 passed in CWP (T) No. 2655 of 2008 by a learned Single Judge in which judgment dated 13.5.2008 passed in CWP No.511 of 2001 has been relied. In brief, there is no dispute that the present petition is covered by judgment dated 13.5.2008 and judgment dated 30.4.2009. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioners are held entitled to the relief in light of judgment dated 13.5.2008 and judgment dated 30.4.2009 noticed above. The petition is disposed of on above terms. ( Kuldip Singh ), September 11, 2009, Judge. (GR)