IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPs No. 9317, 9320, 9324 and 9329 of 2011. Date of Decision : 01..11.2011 _________________________________________________________ 1. . CWP No. 9317 of 2011 Narender Kumar & Others versus State H.P. & Others. 2. CWP No. 9320 of 2011 Suresh Kumar & Others versus State of H. P. & Others 3. CWP No. 9324 of 2011 Satya Parkash versus State of H. P. & others. 4. CWP No. 9329 of 2011. Radha Verma versus State of H. P. & others. . _________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________________ For the Petitioners: Mr. Onkar Jairth, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. . ______________________________________________________________ R.B. Misra, J. (oral) It is not disputed by the parties that the controversy interse the parties is squarely covered by the decision of the this Court in CWP 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 No.2880 of 2010 titled as Dhanjay Saini versus State of H. P. & others and connected cases, dated 21.10.2010, the relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: “1. The core issue raised in these writ petitions pertains to the question as to whether Para Teacher is to be equated and similarly treated as contract Teacher for the purpose of emoluments. We do not think that the issue requires consideration or any factual or legal issue in view of the stand already taken by the Government as borne out of the communication dated 7.4.2007, Annexure P1, which reads as follows: “I am directed to state that the matter regarding bringing Para Teachers working in the elementary and Higher Education Directorates at par with contract Teachers in the matter of emoluments was engaging the attention of the Government for some time. Now, after consideration, it has been decided that the Para Teachers working in the Elementary or Higher Education Directorates be given the same emoluments as is being paid by the Government to the Contract Teachers, (i.e. initially of the pay scale of the category concerned plus dearness pay @50% thereon). This will be effective w.e.f. 1st April, 2007. This issue with the prior concurrence of the Finance Department obtained vide their No. Fin©B7/2003, dated 7.4.2007.” 2. There is no change of policy either reviewing or recalling annexure P-1. Once the Government has already taken policy decision and equated Para Teachers 3 for all purposes with the Contract Teacher, it is only just, proper and reasonable as far as Contract Teachers’ emoluments are concerned, they are treated at par with the Contract Teachers. 3. As far as the other grievances, like vacation salary, annual increments are concerned, it will be open to the petitioner to make comprehensive representation before the Government in view of the decision of this Court in Baldev Singh versus State of H. P., 2009(1) HLJ 29 and the case of the petitioner will be considered by the Government in the light of the judgment within another four months. Therefore, in the light of Annexure P-1 policy decision, it is made clear that Para Teachers shall also be entitled t the emoluments as are paid to the Contract Teachers and if any recovery is made, the same shall be reimbursed to the Para Teachers.” 2. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of and the parties shall abide by the decision of this Court in Dhanjay’s case supra. 3. The pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. (R.B. Misra) Judge November 01, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), (jai) Judge