IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 10548 of 2011-E Decided on: 8th December, 2011. Kulbhushan Kumar Son of Sh. Prakash chand, R/o village Padher, P.O. Kothandal via Rehan, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. presently working as Lecturer in Mathematics in Govt. Senior Secondary School Gangath, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. … Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Himachal Pradesh, through its Principal Secretary Education to the Government of Himachal Pradesh Shimla-2. 2. The Director of Secondary Education, Shimla, Tehsil & District Shimla, H.P. 3. Deputy Director of Secondary Education, Kangra, District Kangra, HP. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. R.R. Rahi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayer: “i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant the petitioner the benefit of the tenure services for the purpose of increments and the pay of the petitioner may kindly be fixed taking 2 into account the tenure services of the petitioner for fixation of pay.” 2. The petitioner claims the benefit of increments during the tenure period of service rendered by his and also count the said period for the purpose of pension. According to the petitioner, the issue is covered in his favour by the judgments of this Court dated 16.12.2010 rendered in CWP No. 4550 of 2010 titled as Ravi Kumar vs. State of H.P. & others and LPA 36 of 2010 titled as Sita Ram Vs. State of H.P. and others. 3. Learned Deputy Advocate General points out that the factual aspects are to be verified by the competent authority. Petitioner submits that he would file appropriate representation furnishing all factual details before the competent authority within a period of one month from today. It is always open for him to do so. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent concerned to examine the matter and verify the facts in the light of the judgments 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 judgments referred to above by the petitioner. 5. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 8th December, 2011. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), (kck) Judge.