IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 4395 of 2008. Decided on: 26.7.2010. __________________________________________________ Kuldip Singh and others. …Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners : Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl.A.G. ___________________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petitioners have filed and maintained the present petition for grant of the following substantive reliefs, vide para 7 (i) to (iv) of the petition: “(i) That the respondents may be directed to fix the salary of the applicants in the regular pay scale of Rs. 950- 1800 and pay to the applicants the arrears of salary with effect from the appointed day, along with interest thereon at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. (ii) That the respondents may be directed to give to the applicants the benefit of past service rendered by them in the Kutlehar Forests for the purposes of pay fixation, seniority and other related benefits, including the retiral benefits. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 (iii) That the provisions of Sections 8 and 11 of the Act of 1992 to the extent impugned may be declared ultra vires and be quashed and set aside. (iv) That the applicants may be held entitled to the salary at par with Govt. employees in the same rank. They may be further held entitled to the same remuneration, rights and privileges and tenure as is admissible to the Govt. employees.” 2. Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter raised in the present petition is covered on all fours by a judgment dated 29.12.2009 rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP (T) No. 2492 of 2008 (OA No. 2104 of 1999), titled Om Dutt versus State of H.P. and others, a copy of which has also been placed on record. It is further submitted that on the basis of this judgment another co-ordinate Bench of this Court has disposed of CWP (T) No. 4522 of 2008 by an order dated 20.4.2010 being a covered matter. The learned counsel has also filed a copy of order dated 20.4.2010. 3. I have gone through judgment dated 29.12.2009 and order dated 20.4.2010 and am satisfied that the present petition which also raises identical questions of fact and law is fully covered under the judgment dated 29.12.2009 passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh. This position is also not disputed on behalf of the respondents. 4. It shall be appropriate to notice the operative part of the judgment dated 29.12.2009, which is to the following effect: “In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The Annexure A-1 dated 19.12.1998 vide which respondent No.4 had given placement of Forest 3 Guard to petitioner w.e.f. 7.2.1996 is quashed. It is held that petitioner was Forest Ranger of H.P. Government on appointed day i.e. 11.3.1995 under the Act and continued as such till 30.11.1998 when he was retired. The petitioner was entitled to salary as was payable to Forest Ranger in the H.P. Government on 11.3.1995 and thereafter. The petitioner is also entitled to counting of his entire service rendered by him under the erstwhile Kutlehar Forest management till his retirement on 30.11.1998 for purposes of pay fixation, seniority and retiral benefits in accordance with Section 8 of the Himachal Pradesh Kutlehar Forest (Acquisition of Management) Act, 1992. The respondents are directed to calculate the arrears payable to petitioner in accordance with the judgment and pay the same to the petitioner within a period of six months from today after adjusting payments which have already been made to the petitioner on account of his retirement on 30.11.1998, failing which the petitioner shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% on such arrears till payment. The petition is disposed of on above terms.” 5. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Consequently, it is directed that the respondents shall grant such benefits as have accrued to the similarly situate persons in terms of the aforesaid judgment dated 29.12.2009 in CWP (T) No. 2492 of 2008 (OA No. 2104 of 1999), titled Om Dutt versus State of H.P. and others. However, it shall be subject to appropriate variations 4 keeping in view the designation of the petitioners herein viz-a-viz their counter-parts. 6. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. With disposal of the main petition, pending CMP(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of as infructuous. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. July 26, 2010. (cr)