1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 11397 of 2011-J Decided on: 29.12.2011 Sanjeev Kumar, S/o Sh. Kanshi Ram Katwal, R/o Village Ghira, P.O. & Tehsil Sandhol, District Mandi, H.P. presently working as Lecturer-English in Govt. Sernior Secondary School Sandhol, Tehsil Sandhol, District Mandi, H.P. ....Petitioner Versus 1. State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2. 2. The Director of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. 3. Deputy Director of Higher Education, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. ....Respondents Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. For the petitioner : M/s R.L. Chaudhary and Daleep Singh Kaith, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General, Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. 2 Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed mainly with the following prayers: “(i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent to pay the revised pay scale of 1996 and 2006 for the contractual service of the petitioner, since after regularization, he is getting the revised pay scale, but during the contractual period, same was not given to him. (ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to count the contractual services of the petitioner for increment and for pensionary benefits.” 2. The first issue is the subject matter of LPA No. 105 of 2010. The writ petition is disposed of making it clear that appropriate action in the case of the petitioner shall also be taken in accordance with the decision of LPA No. 105 of 2010, subject to its finality, within another two months. 3. Secondly, the petitioner claims the benefit of increments during the tenure/contractual period of service rendered by him and also count the said period for the purpose of pension. According to the petitioner, the issue is covered in his favour by the judgment of this Court dated 16.12.2010 rendered in 3 CWP No. 4550 of 2010 titled as Ravi Kumar vs. State of H.P. & another and other connected matters. In that case, the Court has only granted liberty to contract teachers to make representation to the Government for counting the service during the contract period also as qualifying service. Similarly, the petitioner herein also is free to file such representation before the Government and the Government may pass appropriate orders in the matter, in accordance with law, within a period of four months. 4. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. December 29, 2011 (Justice Dev Dasrshan Sud), ( ms/hl) Judge.