IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 10440/2008 Decided on:19.4.2011 _____________________________________________ Vinod Kumar Shastri. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Tarlok Jamwal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he was initially appointed as Shastri Teacher in Janta Middle School, Nimelri, District Mandi on 26.6.1984. The school was taken over by the Government, which led to the termination of the petitioner on 20.3.1988. Petitioner assailed his termination before the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 884/1993. The Tribunal directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Shastri Teacher in the School. Consequently, the petitioner was appointed as 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 Shastri Teacher in the month of September, 1994. However, according to him, he has not been given monetary benefits from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 26.6.1984. According to the averments contained in the petition one Sh. Satish Kumar Shastri, who was working in Sharda Mata Middle School, Shimse in District Mandi was given all the benefits as per the date of initial appointment in the privately managed school with effect from 8.9.1992 to 29.11.1996. Petitioner has also made representation for the redressal of his grievance on 15.3.2003. He has placed on record copy of order dated 5.3.2002 whereby similarly situate person Sh. Satish Kumar Shastri has been given the benefits. Petitioner being similarly situate vis-à-vis Sh. Satish Kumar Shastri cannot be discriminated against. Equals cannot be treated un-equals. 2. Mr. Tarlok Jamwal has brought to the notice of the Court judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP (T) No. 6697/2008, title Vijay Kumar versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 10.11.2010. Case of the present petitioner is slightly different. In this case, petitioner has been offered fresh appointment, but in the case of Sh. Satish Kumar Shastri Kumar, he was given benefit of 3 seniority on notional basis. Thus, the ratio of this judgment will not be applicable to this case. 3. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of Annexure A-2, within a period of 8 weeks, from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 19.4.2011 *awasthi*