IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 14240 of 2008, along with CWP(T) Nos. 14241 and 14258 of 2008. Decided on : 9.11.2011. ________________________________________________ 1. CWP(T) No. 14240 of 2008 Harnam Singh and another … Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and others … Respondents. 2. CWP(T) No. 14241 of 2008 Chanan Ram … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others … Respondents. 3. CWP(T) No. 14258 of 2008 Madan Lal Sharma and others … Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and others … Respondents. _____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners : Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General. _____________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge.(Oral) Since all these petitions raise identical questions of fact and law, the same are taken up together for disposal. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 2. The learned Addl. Advocate General, has filed a communication dated 27.8.2011, addressed to the learned Advocate General to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, by the Director of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, text whereof is as under:- “I have the honour to submit that the abovementioned Civil Writ Petitions are pending adjudication before the Hon’ble High court. In this regard it is submitted that petitioners have filed the above titled writ petitions for non Grant of Salary for the period for more than 11 months i.e. November 2004 to February 2005, December 2005 to March 2006 and june 2006 to august 2006. The petitioners have also prayed that pay and other Allowances like 95% GIA, ADA be paid to them. That the petitioners have been paid all due and admissible salary for the period mention in the writ petitions and Grant-in- Aid has been released to this effect. It is pertinent to mention here that the College has been taken over by the Govt. in the year 2007 alongwith eligible staff. It is therefore, requested that Hon’ble Court may be apprised accordingly on the next daeofhearing.” 3. In view of the above, when all the claims raised by the petitioners in the above titled petitions have already been granted to them by respondents No. 1 3 and 2 and the fact that respondent No.3-Private College has since been taken over by the Government in the year 2007, nothing survives for adjudication in these petitions, which are accordingly disposed of. 4. In view of disposal of the main petitions, pending CMP(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of as infructuous. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. 9th November, 2011 (lsp)