1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 6873 of 2011 alongwith CWP Nos. 6874, 6875, 6876, 6877, 6878, 6879, 6880 & 6906 of 2011. Decided on: 24.8.2011 1. CWP No. 6873 of 2011. Savitri Devi Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 2. CWP No. 6874 of 2011. Rajeshwari Sharma Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 3. CWP No. 6875 of 2011. Gayatri Gupta Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 4. CWP No. 6876 of 2011. Hima Vati Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 5. CWP No. 6877 of 2011. Bindra Devi Gupta Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 6. CWP No. 6878 of 2011. Payar Devi Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 7. CWP No. 6879 of 2011. Shyam Lata Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 8. CWP No. 6880 of 2011. Biasa Devi Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 9. CWP No. 6906 of 2011. Kaushalya Devi Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 2 Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner(s): Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. 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. As prayed for, it is open for the petitioners to bring this fact to the notice of the respondents, who shall examine the same. Therefore, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondent concerned to examine the matter in the light of the judgment, referred to above and take appropriate action, within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment, alongwith their representation(s) and a copy of the writ petition(s) as well as a copy of the judgment, referred to above, by the petitioner(s). 3 2. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. August 24, 2011 (Justice Rajiv Sharma), (sck/hl) Judge.