IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 5093 of 2008. Decided on: 14.06.2010. Susheela Kumari. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Dr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General, for the respondents. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): The case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that he is entitled to pay scale of Rs.1640-2925/-. Petitioner has given the instances, whereby the pay scale of Rs.1640-2925/- has been granted to Assistant Librarians, namely, Shri Suman Gupta, Smt. Dinesh Kumari, Smt. Salochana Katoch and Shri Teelaka Bisht working in Government Secondary School, Sundernagar, Government Secondary School, Darang, Government Secondary School, Kotli and Government Boys Secondary School, Mandi, respectively. These persons, according to him, have been granted the pay scale of Rs.1640-2925/- on the basis of the judgment 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - rendered by the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in D.R. Chauhan and others versus State of H.P. and others, T.A. No. 543 of 1986 on 26th July, 1993. 2. The respondent-State was granted opportunity to rebut the averments contained in paragraph-5 ( c) of the petition on 10th May, 2010. However, the Principal Secretary (Education) did not file the supplementary affidavit, as directed on the said date. Thereafter, a week’s further time was granted on 26.05.2010 to the respondent-State to comply with the order dated 10.05.2010, but till date the supplementary affidavit has not been filed. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General prays for a week’s time to do the needful. However, the Court is of the considered view that the time granted to the respondent-State to file the supplementary affidavit was appropriate in view of the fact that the present petition is pending since 1998. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure A- 3, dated 13.10.1997 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner at par with the Assistant Librarians, mentioned in Para-5(c ) of the writ petition and read in conjunction with the judgment rendered by the learned Tribunal in T.A. No. 543 of 1986 on 26th July, 1993, within a period of ten weeks from today. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge June 14, 2010. (bhupender) - 3 - - 4 -