IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 12031 of 2008. Decided on: 7.1.2011. ___________________________________________________________ Shri Yash Pal Singh. … Petitioner. Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and another. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy.A.G. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following averments set up vide para 6 (i) to (iv):- “6(i). That the applicant is working with the respondent-department against the post of T.G.T. (Arts) at Govt. High School Jadol, Taproli, Tehsil Rajgarh, Distt. Sirmour, H.P. on contract basis. (ii). That the applicant has been working on contract basis as T.G.T. (Arts) since May, 1998. (iii). That the basic salary of the applicant is Rs. 4407.00. (iv). That the applicant unlike other contract teachers performing the same nature of duty as T.G.T. (Arts) was not guaranteed the enhanced salary/scale w.e.f. December, 2004.” 2. On the above averments, the petition has been filed on the following prayers, vide para 7 (i) & (ii):- “7 (i). That the applicant be considered for enhanced salary w.e.f. December, 2004. (ii). That arrears and back wages be paid with interest w.e.f. December, 2004.” 3. In reply on behalf of the respondents, the following stand has been taken vide paras 3 & 6 (iv):- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 “3. That the present Original Application filed by the applicant is not maintainable due to the fact that the applicant has rightly been denied the benefit of revised pay scale as the letter No. Shiksha-II-Kha (12/2/93) dated 23.5.2003 vide which the revised pay scale was allowed to the contract appointees has been withdrawn by the respondent-State. Therefore, the present original application is liable to be dismissed. 6(iv). That in reply to this para, it is submitted that the respondent-department is not giving revised pay scale to any of the contract appointees. However, it is submitted that some of the contract appointees are getting revised pay scale by obtaining interim stay through various original applications in this Hon’ble Tribunal.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is covered under judgment dated 15.6.2010 rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP (T) No. 781 of 2008, Rakesh Chand and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 5. In view of the above, if on facts the case of the petitioner is covered under the judgment referred to hereinabove and the same has attained finality and has been implemented, he shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and benefit of the said judgment along with consequential benefits, if any, shall be extended to him within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment, failing which interest at the rate of 9% per annum shall also be payable. 6. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. January 7, 2011. (cr)