IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 3436 of 2011 and CWPs No. 3437, 3438, 3439, 3441 and 3442 of 2011 Date of decision: 27.05.2011 ________________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 3436 of 2011 Ramesh Kumar. ...Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. & another. ...Respondents. 2. CWP No. 3437 of 2011 Mohinder Singh. ...Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. & another. ...Respondents. 3. CWP No. 3438 of 2011 Sureshwar Chand. ...Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. & another. ...Respondents. 4. CWP No. 3439 of 2011 Parshottam Dass. ...Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. & another. ...Respondents. 5. CWP No. 3441 of 2011 Devinder Kumar. ...Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. & another. ...Respondents. 6. CWP No. 3442 of 2011 Sat Dev Sharma. ...Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. & another. ...Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph,C.J. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma,J. ________________________________________________________________________ ...2... For the petitioner(s): Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, AG with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. AG with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. AG. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitions are filed with the common prayers, one set of which reads as under: “1. That the respondents may be directed to give the benefit of increments for the period of uninterrupted adhoc and tenure service w.e.f. 30.1.1985 till his regularization / regular appointment on 1.4.1994 and thereafter till April 2011 onwards; 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 vs State vice Annexures P-2 & P-3 with pay fixation, arrears and all consequential benefits forthwith.” 2. The petitioners claim the benefit of increments during the tenure period of service rendered by them and also count the said period for the purpose of pension. According to the petitioners, the issue is covered in their favour by the judgment of this Court dated 16.12.2010 rendered in CWP No. 4550 of 2010 titled as Ravi Kumar vs. State of H.P. & others. It is for the respondents to examine the matter. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent concerned to examine the matter in the light of the judgment referred to above and take appropriate action thereon within a period of four months from the date of the production of a copy of this judgment alongwith a copy of the writ petition and the copy of the ...3... judgment referred to above. 3. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice (Justice V.K. Sharma) Judge 27th May, 2011 (jai/virender)