IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 240/2011 Decided on:3.8.2011 _____________________________________________ State of H.P. and another. …Appellants. Versus N.F.C. Teachers Association and another. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Appellants : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. For the Respondents: Nemo _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). CMP (M) No.784/2011 Heard. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The Application stands disposed of. LPA No. 240/2011 This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment dated 15.12.2010 of the learned Single Judge rendered in CWP (T) No. 4061/2008. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2. The core issue involved in the petition filed by the respondent-Association was the manner in which the service conditions of the members of the Association with regard to emoluments payable to them on the absorption in the State of H.P. were to be regulated. According to the respondent-Association, these were to be regulated on the basis of letter dated 19.5.1986. Letter dated 19.5.1986 has been issued by the Central Government after the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No.5450/80 dated 20.12.1985. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also considered the similar issue in State of Haryana and another versus D.L. Uppal and others, 1995 (5) SLR 233 as under: “Thus, it would be clear that the respondents who were hitherto working with the Central Government are absorbed in the service of the State of Haryana in the Education Department as P.E.Ts., or D.P.Es. with effect from July 1, 1976, will be entitled to the pay on par with the State Government employees and allowances, namely, the Dearness Allowance, Interim Relief etc. will be as admissible to the Central Government employees and as on the date of absorption. The expenditure incurred by the State Government in that behalf will be reimbursed by the Central Government till they remain in the cadre of the P.E.T. only.” 3 3. The learned Deputy Advocate General has failed to point out any illegality in the judgment of the learned Single Judge whereby he has come to a conclusion that the service conditions of the members of the Association were to be governed by letter dated 19.5.1986 Annexure A-17. 4. Accordingly, there is no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 3.8.2011 *awasthi*