IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 8959 of 2008 Decided on 22.12.2010 Birbal Kumar and others ..…Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another …… Respondents. _____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General. V.K.Sharma, Judge (Oral) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the very outset that the case of the petitioners is covered under the judgment dated 20.12.2010, rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP(T) No. 11169 of 2008, Meena Kumari vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, text whereof is as under:- “The pay of the petitioner was enhanced vide office order dated 23.5.2003. However, the same has been withdrawn unilaterally vide order dated 14.10.2003 (Annexure A-2). The petitioner has neither been issued any show cause notice nor he has been afforded ample opportunity of being heard before the issuance of order dated 14.10.2003, Annexure A-2. Since the salary of the petitioner has 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. 2 been reduced, that too, unilaterally, he has suffered civil and evil consequences. 2. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-2 dated 14.10.2003 is quashed and set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. No costs.” 2. In view of the above, if on facts, the case of the petitioners is covered under the aforesaid judgment in CWP(T) No. 11169 of 2008 and they are also similarly situate persons as the petitioner in the aforesaid case, they shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination. 3. The petition, so also the pending CMP(s), if any stand disposed of in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 22nd December, 20.10. Lsp*