IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 1303 of 2009 Date of Decision: 12.05.2010 __________________________________________________________ Gian Singh Bisht and others. ….Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. ….Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No __________________________________________________________ For the Petitioners: Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral) The petitioners were appointed as National Discipline Scheme Instructors with the Government of India and later on w.e.f. 1.6.1973 the administrative control of all the National Discipline Scheme Instructors was handed over to the Education Department, where they were working. The claim of the petitioners was that they were entitled for three advance increments in terms of letter dated 5th December, 1986, contained in Annexure P-3 and Annexure P-4. 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes 2 2. This Writ Petition is resisted by the State primarily on the ground that the notification dated 5.12.1986 restricts the sanction of three advance increments to a particular category of teachers, namely, whose salary is more than Rs. 620/- per month. 3. The question regarding the grant of advance increments was the subject matter of determination before this Court in CWP No. 511 of 2001, titled Babu Ram and another Vs. State of H.P. & another, where in this court has considered the entire matter thread bare and has held that no such restriction was imposed as urged by the State herein. The Court ruled in the petition preferred against the judgment of Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal declining the benefit of three advance increments to the petitioners, who were working as Physical Education Teachers that they were entitled for benefits of three advance increments as claimed. This judgment was later on followed by this Court in CWP No. 1298 of 2009 titled Daya Ram Thakur and Others Vs. State of H.P. and others where the petitioners were working as National Discipline Scheme Instructors serving in the State under the Education Department. There is no difference in facts in the case in Writ Petition No. 1298 of 2009 and the present Writ Petition. In these circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed. A direction is issued that this petition shall be abide by the directions issued CWP No. 1298 of 2009 titled Daya Ram Thakur Vs. State of H.P. and others. The petitioners shall be entitled to three advance increments, as prayed for. This Writ Petition is disposed of. Let a copy of judgment of Daya Ram’s case be placed on record of this petition. There shall be no order as to costs. May 12, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (KRS) Judge