IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.8577 of 2008 Decided on : 7.12.2010 ___________________________________________________________ Onkar Chand … Petitioner. Versus The Secretary (Education) and others … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. M.C. Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Asstt. Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge.(Oral) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the very out set that the case of the petitioner is covered under judgment dated 29.04.2010 of this Court in CWP(T) No. 8872 of 2008, Chamaru Ram and others vs. The Secretary (Education) and others, text whereof is as under:- “Petitioner has field this writ petition with the following prayers:- “(i) That the applicants may be held entitled to annual increments for each competed year of service right from the date of their appointment on the JBT posts as cited against their names in para 6(iv) above and their pay fixed accordingly on the date of their regularization/grant of Special JBT Certificate. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 (ii) That the pay of the applicants is also prayed to be raised by one or two proficiency increments keeping in view their length of service on the post of JBT. (iii) That the applicants may also kindly held entitled to the arrears of re-fixation of their pay on year to year basis and the interest @ 18% may also be allowed to them for the delay in payment of their legitimately due amount of arrears of pay. 2. It is submitted that identical issue was considered by this court, leading to the judgment, dated 19.5.2009 in Paras Ram Vs. State of H.P. and another (CWP(T) No. 771 of 2008). This court has issued a direction to count ad hoc service rendered by the petitioner therein for the purpose of annual increment. 3. It is not in dispute that the judgment has become final. Therefore, this petition is disposed of directing the respondents to extend the similar treatment to the petitioners herein also. The needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of production of the copy of this judgment alongwith the copy of the judgment, referred to above and consequential benefits shall also be disbursed to them within a period of another one month. 4. The petition stands disposed of. Copy dasti.” 2. If, on facts, the case of the petitioner is covered under the aforesaid judgment in CWP(T) No. 8872 of 2008, Chamaru Ram and others vs. The Secretary (Education) and others, his case shall be considered by respondent No.2 in the light of the said judgment within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner within one month from today. 3 3. The writ petition, so also the pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. 7th December, 2010. (lsp)