IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 3457 of 2011. Decided on: May 30, 2011. Rajni Devi. Versus State of H.P. & anr. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, AG with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. AG. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers: “i) That the action of denying the benefit of increments for tenure service on regularization for pay fixation till day is unfair, unjust, illegal, arbitrary discriminatory and unsustainable. ii) That the respondents may be directed to give the benefit of increments for the period of uninterrupted tenure service w.e.f. 19.12.1987 till regularization/regular appointment on 20.3.1999 and then till April 2011 and thereafter; in view of the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in CWP(T) No. 4357/2008 titled as Thakuri Devi vs State and in CWP No 4550/2010 titled as Ravi Kumar vide Annexures P-2 & P-3 with pay fixation, arrears and all consequential benefits forthwith. iii) That the action of not acting upon the representation dated 21.4.2011 vide Annexure P-1, in terms of judgments in cases of Thakuri Devi and Ravi Kumar vide Annexure P-2 & P-3 may kindly be held illegal. iv) That the respondents may be directed to step up or parity in pay of the petitioner at par with junior as per grounds (k) above, with all consequential benefits forthwith.” 2. According to the petitioner, the issue is covered in her favour by the judgment of this Court rendered in CWP No. 4550 of 2010, Ravi Kumar Vrs. State of H.P. & another. It is for the respondents to examine the matter. The petitioner submits that she would file appropriate representation furnishing all factual details before the competent authority within a period of one month from today. It is always open for her to do so. As and when the same is made, the 2 second respondent/competent authority will look into the matter, verify the facts and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition by the petitioner before the second respondent. 3. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application (s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. May 30, 2011. ( Justice Sanjay Karol), (vs) Judge.