IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 10342 of 2011-E & connected matters. Decided on: November 30, 2011. 1. CWP No. 10342 of 2011-E Usha Kiran. Vrs. State of H.P. & anr. 2. CWP No. 10343 of 2011-E Priya Mahajan. Vrs. State of H.P. & anr. 3. CWP No. 10344 of 2011-E Kusum. Vrs. State of H.P. & anr. 4. CWP No. 10347 of 2011-E Meena Kumari & anr. Vrs. State of H.P. & ors. 5. CWP No. 10349 of 2011-E Prem Lata. Vrs. State of H.P. & anr. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioners: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashishta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, AG with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. AG. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) These writ petitions have been filed with similar set of prayers and one such main prayer in CWP No. 10342 of 2011, reads as follows: “(i) writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant the benefit of pay fixation and counting of the service for the purpose of pension w.e.f. 9.9.1987 to 31.3.1994 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. According to the petitioners, the issue is covered in their favour by the judgment of this Court rendered in CWP No. 4550 of 2010, Ravi Kumar Vrs. State of H.P. & another. It is for the respondents to examine the matter. The 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. As and when the same is made, the second respondent/competent authority will look into the matter, verify the facts and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within a 2 period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition(s) by the petitioner concerned before the second respondent. 3. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. November 30, 2011. ( Justice Rajiv Sharma), (vs) Judge.