Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 139 (HP)

Bhawani Singh v. State of H. P.

2013-03-01

KURIAN JOSEPH, RAJIV SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, C.J. The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “(a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay at least the minimum of the revised pay scale of subsequent revision of pay scale (applicable w.e.f. 1.1.2006) to the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment up till the date of issuance of notification of revised pay scales i.e. dated 26th August 2009 as extended to the regular counterparts i.e (TGT’s/OT’s/School Lecturers) who holds the similar post in view of the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in State of HP versus Rakesh Chand and others i.e. LPA 105/2010 and further directing respondents to pay the arrears with all consequential benefits to the petitioners with interest. (b) Further issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to extend the benefit of due and admissible merger of 50% Dearness Allowance with basic pay in view of the judgment titled as Nek Ram vs. State of HP i.e. CWP (T) No. 14232/2008.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the case of the petitioners for merger of 50% dearness allowance is covered by the judgment rendered in CWP(T) No. 14232 of 2008, titled as Nek Ram and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 17.11.2009. 3. Therefore, there will be a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in view of the principles laid down by this Court in the judgment dated 17.11.2009, as noticed above, within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner concerned. 4. As regards the case of the petitioners for the revised pay scale is concerned, the issue is covered in their favour by the judgment dated 13.12.2012 of this Court rendered in LPA No. 105 of 2010, State of H.P. Vs. Rakesh Chand and others. If that be so, similar treatment shall also be extended to the petitioners herein also, as extended to the writ petitioners in the above referred decision, in case the petitioners are also similarly situated, within a period of two months from the date of 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 before the third respondent. 5. 5. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.