IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 10549 of 2011-E. Decided on: 8th December, 2011. CWP No. 10549 of 2011-E 1. Sh. Ashok Kumar, S/o Sh. Hirda Ram, presently working as Lecturer (History) in Govt. Sen. Sec. School, Panjehra, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Sh. Ram Saran, S/o Sh. Dutta Ram Gautam, presently working as T.G.T. in Govt. Sen. Sec. School, Bhatian, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. 3. Smt. Surjeet Kaurm presently working as T.G.T. in Govt. Middle School, Dhana, P.O. Bhatian, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. 4. Sh. Vijay Kumar, s/o Sh. Milkhi Ram, Presently working as T.G.T. in govt. High School, Dhang, P.O. Plassi-Klan, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. 5. Smt. Inder Preet Kaur, W/o Sh. Madan Gopal, presently working as T.G.T. in Govt. Sen. Sec. School, Khera, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. 6. Sh. Devinder Singh, S/o Sh. Pritam Singh, presently working as Lecturer (History) in Govt. Sen. Sec. School, Baruna, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. 7. Sh. Sada Ram, S/o Sh. Mansa Ram, presently working as T.G.T in Govt. Middle School, Rampur P.O. Plassi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. 8. Smt. Onkar Kaur, w/o Sh. Rajbant, presently working as lecturer (History) in Govt. Sen. Sec. School, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. ….. Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of H.P., through Secretary (Education) Govt. of H.P. Shimla-2. 2. The Director of Education, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. …..Respondents. 2 Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioners : Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:- “i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to count the tenure period of service rendered by the petitioners for increments, fixation of pay, pensionery benefits and seniority by allowing them all the increments from the date of their initial appointment as per the law settled by this Hon’ble Court in case titled as Ravi Kumar vs. State of H.P. & others. 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. 3 4. Therefore, the writ petition is 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 petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 8the December, 2011. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), (kck) Judge.