IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 10681 of 2011. Decided on: 08.12.2011. K.C. Rana (Kalyan Chand Rana) son of Shri Ram Saran Rana, resident of village Dagoh, Post Office Dagoh, Tehsil Jai Singhpur, district Kangra, H.P. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of H.P. through Secretary (Education), Shimla. 2. The Director of Elementary Education, Shimla. 3. The Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Kangra at Dharamshala. …. Respondents. Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or nay other appropriate writ, order or directions in the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinafter, in the interests of law and justice. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, C. J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. For the petitioner : Mr. Nareh Kaul, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General Mr. Vinod Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayer(s):- “i) That the respondents may be directed to release/restore the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925 to - 2 - the petitioner from the date of initial appointment, i.e. 25.9.1989 and as revised from time to time w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and then w.e.f. 1.1.2006 till day as OT/Shastri teacher; without discriminating the petitioner when, this pay scale has been restored and released to Sh. Mohinder Singh and many other similarly placed Shastri/OT teachers on the basis of the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWP(T) 2903/2008 vide Annexures P-4; LPA No. 107/2009 dated 30.3.2010 vide Annexure P-5 which also stands implemented as per letter dated 31.7.2010 vide Annexure P- 6 forthwith. ii) That the action of reducing the pay scale of the petitioner from Rs. 1640-2925 to Rs. 1500-2700 on 6.7.1993 from initial date of appointment is illegal, which may kindly be quashed and set- aside. iii) That the respondents may be directed to restore the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925 as revised from time to time, to the petitioner with all the consequential benefits forthwith. iv) That the action of the respondents in not releasing the benefits in terms of the judgments vide Annexures P- 4 and Annexure P-5 to the petitioner, may kindly be held as discriminatory, malafide and illegal.” 2. It is evident that the similarly situated persons have already been granted the benefits as can be seen from Annexures P-4 and P-5. It is submitted that Annexure P-5 judgment passed by this court in LPA No. 107 of 2009, titled State of H.P. & Ors. versus Mohinder Singh, on 30.3.2010, has become final. There will be a - 3 - direction to the second respondent/competent authority to take appropriate action in the case of the petitioner herein also, without discriminating him, within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment alongwith a copy of the writ petition by the petitioner. Consequential benefits to which the petitioner is found eligible shall also be disbursed within another one month. 3. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application (s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. December 08, 2011. (sck/hl).