JUDGMENT : 1. The writ petitioner was initially appointed as a lecturer on an adhoc basis on 05.03.1987, at Sanskrit Pathshala(s), Nahan. Her services, in the afore capacity, through an order made on 25.11.1995, were regularized w.e.f. 31.03.1994. However, though she was teaching English to students in Sanskrit College, yet through an order of 11.08.2014, she became transferred to Government Senior Secondary School, Haripur, i.e. a school cadre, and, not a college cadre, and, since consequential therewith losses of per mensem salary become encumbered upon the writ petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, has made a vehement endeavour, before this Court for setting aside Annexure A-14. Obviously for his further endeavour is that the writ petitioner be again put into a college cadre than in a school cadre. 2. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter the afore espoused relief is completely meritless. 3. Though, the writ petitioner was a co-applicant/petitioner along with one Anita Kumar in O.A. No. 870/96, and, whereon a verdict became pronounced on 6.9.2007, by the Erstwhile Administrative Tribunal, and, there through, the hereinafter extracted relief became bestowed upon the petitioner:- “In view of above discussion, the present original application is allowed in terms of decision in OA No.1111/94 with the direction to treat the applicants as lecturer/Pandit w.e.f. the date they joined Sanskrit Colleges and they will be entitled to the pay scale as applicable to other similarly situated persons. However, the arrears of salary would be admissible from a period of three years from the date of filing of the present application with difference of arrears of pay and all consequential benefits like that granted to Sh. Mahindar Sharma, TGT.” 4. In addition, the challenge as made by the State of H.P. to the afore verdict, as, made by the Erstwhile Administrative Tribunal, became dismissed by this Court through the apposite verdict made on 30.07.2010. However, the directions as meted in the verdict supra by the Erstwhile Administrative Tribunal, and, as become extracted supra were not meted compliance by the respondents. Therefore, the writ petitioner along with one Anita Kumar, instituted a contempt petition, bearing COPC No.266 of 2012, before this Court. The afore contempt petition became decided by this Court on 2nd July, 2013. However, the directions as meted in the verdict supra by the Erstwhile Administrative Tribunal, and, as become extracted supra were not meted compliance by the respondents. Therefore, the writ petitioner along with one Anita Kumar, instituted a contempt petition, bearing COPC No.266 of 2012, before this Court. The afore contempt petition became decided by this Court on 2nd July, 2013. This Court while dismissing the afore contempt petition, had in the relevant portion of the afore order, had made the hereinafter extracted directions:- “As a result, the appropriate authority has reverted the petitioners to their original post. It is not in dispute that the said decision of the appropriate authority has been challenged by the writ petitioners being Civil Writ Petition Nos. 8702 of 2012 and 8208 of 2012. The correctness of that decision of the appropriate authority while have to be tested in the said petition. The contempt jurisdiction cannot be used for setting aside of a just and valid order passed by the appropriate authority. As aforesaid, whether the said order is correct or otherwise, is a matter which will have to be tested in the pending writ petition and those issues cannot be answered in contempt jurisdiction. Accordingly, we decline to exercise contempt jurisdiction. The petition is disposed of.” 5. A reading of the afore extracted operative portion of the order made by this Court, on 2.7.2013 upon COPC No. 266 of 2012, does reveal, that the declinings of the writ claim, to the writ petitioner(s), and, as became ordered to be conferred upon them, in terms of a decision recorded upon O.A. No. 870 of 1996, being amenable, for testing, vis-a-vis, its correctness rather in writ petition No. 8702 of 2012, and, CWP No. 8208 of 2012. Even thereafter, a review petition, as, came to be directed against the decision made upon the afore contempt petition, also became dismissed by this Court. 6. The clinching aspect of the entire lis, is that the challenge in the extant writ petition, vis-a-vis, Annexure P-14, was made in pursuance to the decision supra as made by this Court, inasmuch, as the above extracted order, as, made by the Erstwhile Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 870/1996, and, later affirmed by this Court through its making a decision upon CWP No. 3681 of 2010. Moreover, the relief as meted to the writ petitioner was directed to be meted in consonance with the decision as made in O.A. No.1111/1994. Therefore, unless the writ petitioner was at par with the writ petitioners in O.A. No. 1111/94, as, finds reference in the operative portion of the verdict, as, made by the Erstwhile Administrative Tribunal, upon, O.A. No. 870/1996, the writ petitioner could not claim any parity with the writ petitioner(s) in O.A. (supra). 7. Significantly, also when it is displayed in their reply hence by the respondents, that the denial of the writ claim to the writ petitioner, by them, became assailed by her along with one Anita Kumari, through theirs instituting SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court, and, the SLP concerned becoming dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, through orders made on 7.7.2015. Consequently, the writ petitioner cannot claim any mandamus being passed for hers being re-put into college cadre from the school cadre. Moreover, also when during the period of hers serving as a College cadre lecturer, she was paid salary equivalent to the one as was disbursable to the college cadre lecturer(s). 8. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the extant writ petition, and, it is dismissed accordingly. No costs. All pending applications also stand disposed of.