IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 3028 of 2010 alongwith C.W.Ps No. 2583, 2795, 2796,2852,2853,3784,2854,4501,33 52 and 4350 of 2009. Decided on 24.06.2010. 1. Anjana Sharma. ….. Petitioner. -Versus- State of H.P. and another. …… Respondents. 2. Mohan Lal. ….. Petitioner. -Versus- State of H.P. and another. …… Respondents. 3. Paras Ram. ….. Petitioner. -Versus- State of H.P. and another. …… Respondents. 4. Nand Lal Verma. ….. Petitioner. -Versus- State of H.P. and another. …… Respondents. 5. Jawahar Singh. ….. Petitioner. -Versus- State of H.P. and another. …… Respondents. 6. Brij Lal. ….. Petitioner. -Versus- State of H.P. and another. …… Respondents. 7. Chhanga Ram. ….. Petitioner. -Versus- State of H.P. and another. …… Respondents. 2 8. Chaman Prakash. ….. Petitioner. -Versus- State of H.P. and another. …… Respondents. 9. Sadhya Sharma. ….. Petitioner. -Versus- State of H.P. and another. …… Respondents. 10. Dhani Ram. ….. Petitioner. -Versus- State of H.P. and another. …… Respondents. 11. Salig Ram. ….. Petitioner. -Versus- State of H.P. and another. …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioners. : Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate in all the writ petitions except CWP No. 4350 of 2009. Mr. L.N. Sharma, Advocate in CWP No. 4350 of 2009. For the respondents/ State. : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral): The issue raised in these petitions pertains to the question of counting of adhoc services rendered by the incumbents prior to their regular service. It is seen that the issue is covered in their favour by a decision of this Court in Paras Ram versus State 3 of Himachal Pradesh and another, CWP(T) No. 7712 of 2008, decided on 19.5.2009. It is submitted that the Apex Court has dismissed an S.L.P. filed against this judgment. Since the decision has, thus, become final and in case the petitioners are similarly situate, a similar treatment has to be given to the petitioners herein also. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of, directing the second respondent to look into the matter and in case the petitioners are similarly situated, as the petitioner in the case quoted above which has become final, the petitioners shall also be given similar treatment. The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of production of the copy of the judgment alongwith copy of the writ petition by the petitioners. 2. The petitions stand disposed of, so also the pending application (s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 24th June, 2010 (bhupender/awasthi)