IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.5390 2010 Date of decision: 20.12.2010 ------------------------------------------------- Indira Devi Sharma & Ors. Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & others. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J. For the petitioner: Mr. Neel Kamal Sood and Mr. Jai Ram Sharma, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K.Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Justice Kurian Joseph,C.J.(Oral): According to the petitioners, their case is covered by the decision of this Court in CWP No. 2880 of 2010, titled Dhananjay Saini Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 21st October, 2010 and other connected matters, the text of which reads as follows:- “The core issue raised in these writ petitions pertains to the question as to whether Para Teacher is to be equated and similarly treated as a Contract Teacher for the purpose of emoluments. We do not think that the issue requires consideration of any factual or legal issue in view of the stand already taken by the Government as borne out of the communication dated 7.4.2007 Annexure P1, which reads as follows:- “I am directed to state that the matter regarding bringing Para Teachers working in the Elementary & Higher Education Directorates at par with contract Teachers in the matter of emoluments was engaging the attention of the Government for some time. 2 Now, after consideration, it has been decided that the Para Teachers working in the Elementary or Higher Education Directorates be given the same emoluments as is being paid by the Government to the Contract Teachers,( i.e. initial of the pay scale of the category concerned plus dearness pay @ 50% thereon). This will be effective w.e.f. 1st April, 2007. This issue with the prior concurrence of the Finance Department obtained vide their No. Fin (C ) B 7/2003, dated 7.4.2007.” 2. There is no change of policy either reviewing or recalling annexure P-1. Once the Government has already taken policy decision and equated Para Teachers for all purposes with the Contract Teachers, it is only just, proper and reasonable as far as Contract Teachers’ emoluments are concerned, they are treated at par with the Contract Teachers. 3. As far as other grievances, like vacation salary, annual increments are concerned, it will be open to the petitioner to make comprehensive representation before the Government in view of the decision of this Court in Baldev Singh versus State of H.P., 2009 (1) HLJ 29 and the case of the petitioner will be considered by the Government in the light of the judgment within another four months. Therefore, in the light of Annexure P-1 policy decision, it is made clear that Para Teachers shall also be entitled to the emoluments as are paid to the Contract Teachers and if any recovery is made, the same shall be reimbursed to the Para Teachers.” 2. Since the petitioners herein claim that they are also similarly situated as the petitioners referred to in the judgment referred to above, therefore, there will be a direction to the first respondent to examine the case of the petitioners in light of the judgment extracted above and take appropriate action in accordance with law within four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment alongwith a copy of writ petition. 3 3. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice December 20, 2010 ( Justice V.K. Ahuja ), (BSS/Tilak) Judge