IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPs No. 1124, 1125 and 1159 of 2011. Decided on: 18th April, 2011. 1. CWP No.1124 of 2011. Trilok Chand Garg. Vs. State of H.P. & anr. 2. CWP No.1125 of 2011. Sita Ram Sharma. Vs. State of H.P. & anr. 3. CWP No.1159 of 2011. Rajesh Gupta. Vs. State of H.P. & anr. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioners : Ms. A.K. Vashista, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. AG and Mr. J.K. Verma, DAG. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petitions are filed with the following prayer: “(i) writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to count the service rendered by the petitioner on tenure basis for the purpose of grant the benefit of increments/pay fixation and pension w.e.f. i.e. 12.9.1990 to 31.3.1994 (16.8.1988 to 31.3.1994 in CWP No.1125/2011 & 12.9.1988 to 31.3.1994 in CWP No.1159/2011) the due date in favour of the petitioner as has been allowed to similarly placed persons in the department of Education, Government of Himachal Pradesh along with consequential benefits.” 2 2. The petitioners claim the benefit of increments during the tenure period of service rendered by them and also count the said period for the purpose of pension. According to the petitioners, the issue is covered in their favour by the judgment of this Court dated 16.12.2010 rendered in CWP No. 4550 of 2010 titled as Ravi Kumar vs. State of H.P. & others. 3. Learned Deputy Advocate General points out that the factual aspects are to be verified by the competent authority. Petitioners submit that they would file appropriate representation(s) furnishing all factual details before the competent authority within a period of one month from today. It is always open for them to do so. 4. Therefore, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondent concerned to examine the matter and verify the facts in the light of the judgment referred to above and take appropriate action thereon within a period of four months from the date of the production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition and the copy of the judgment referred to above by the petitioner concerned. 5. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 18th April, 2011. (Justice Sanjay Karol), (tr/K) Judge. 3