IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 3706 of 2008. Decided on: 28.10.2010. __________________________________________________ Dr. P.K. Mehta and others. … Petitioners. Versus The State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, CJ. Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioners : None. For respondent No.1 : Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G. For respondents No. 2 & 3 : None. For respondent No.4 : Mr. Lokender Thakur, Adv. ___________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, CJ (Oral). The petition has been filed with the following prayers: “(i). That the order/letter Annexure A-1 be set aside. (ii). That the pay of the applicants may be stepped up with effect from 1.1.1986 and they be held entitled to interest at the rate of 18% p.a. as the applicants had been agitating their claim with the respondent No.4 for the last more than five years.” 2. In the reply, in paragraph 2, it is stated as follows: “The application is not maintainable due to the act and conduct of the applicants. The applicants despite being Ph.D. holders were given the offer of appointment in the old scale of Rs. 700-1600 without any additional increments and they accepted the 2 appointments without any condition and joined their services as mentioned in para (iii) of the application. The provision of three advance increments which has been made on account of provision of revised pay scales to the fresh recruits/entrants w.e.f. 1.1.1986 who are appointed in the revised pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 cannot be applied retrospectively to all those who had been appointed prior to 1.1.1986 in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 700-1600. The applicants had also opted for revised scale without any condition as is evident from options annexed herewith as Annexures R-1 to R-4.” 3. In view of the above reply, in case the petitioner has any dispute left with regard to the factual position and legal aspect of the matter, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the fourth respondent within one month, in which case the matter will be duly considered by the fourth respondent within another four months. 4. In view of the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice. (Justice V.K. Sharma) Judge. October 28, 2010. (cr)