IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPs No. 7898, 7899, 7900, 7901, 7902, 7903, 7908, 8502, 8505, 8506, 8507 & 8508 of 2011. Decided on: 28th September, 2011. 1. CWP No. 7898 of 2011. Manjeet Singh. Vs. State of H.P. & another. 2. CWP No. 7899 of 2011. Narender Kumar. Vs. State of H.P. & another. 3. CWP No. 7900 of 2011. Balbir Singh. Vs. State of H.P. & another. 4. CWP No. 7901 of 2011. Ashok Kumar. Vs. State of H.P. & another. 5. CWP No. 7902 of 2011. Suresh Singh. Vs. State of H.P. & another. 6. CWP No. 7903 of 2011. Sher Singh. Vs. State of H.P. & another. 7. CWP No. 7908 of 2011. Devender Singh. Vs. State of H.P. & another. 8. CWP No. 8502 of 2011. Devender Pal. Vs. State of H.P. & another. 9. CWP No. 8505 of 2011. Shiv Kumar. Vs. State of H.P. & another. 10. CWP No. 8506 of 2011. Nand Lal. Vs. State of H.P. & another. 11. CWP No. 8507 of 2011. Jaipal Singh. Vs. State of H.P. & another. 2 12. CWP No. 8508 of 2011. Rajinder Kumar. Vs. State of H.P. & another. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioners : Mr. Kunal Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) All the petitioners claim that their services as Instructor in the Army Education Corps should be treated as service in the grade for the purpose of promotion to the post of Principal. According to the petitioners, the issue was considered by the learned Single Judge of this Court leading to Annexure P-8, judgment in CWP No. 4420 of 2010 titled as Pratap Singh Verma vs. State of H.P. and another. It is seen that the learned Single Judge has held in favour of the position as contemplated by the petitioners. 2. The learned Additional Advocate General points out that the matter is still under examination since even the last date fixed for implementation of the judgment is only 31st October, 2011. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners may be held entitled to the benefits of the judgment, subject to its finality, in case they are similarly situated. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of as follows: 3 3. In case the petitioners are similarly situated as the petitioner in CWP No. 4420 of 2010, the claim of the petitioners for promotion as Principal shall be considered in the light of the said decision, subject to the implementation of the said judgment on its finality. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 28th September, 2011. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), (tr) Judge. 4