IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,SHIMLA.CWP (T) No. : 5277/2008Decided on: 23.5.2012_____________________________________________1. Amar Singh Rana son of late Sh. Malhu Ram, resident ofvillage Sunpur, P.O. Garholi, Tehsil Baijnath, DistrictKangra, H.P.2. Ramesh Kumar son of late Sh. Sunder Ram resident ofvillage Hambot, P.O. Hatwar, Tehsil Ghumarwin, DistrictBilaspur, H.P. presently working as TGT (Science) at GHSRandhara, District Mandi, H.P.Versus…Petitioners.1. State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Education)to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-171001.2. Director of Education, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-171001.3. Secretary (Finance) to the Government of HimachalPradesh, Shimla-2.…Respondents.Application under section 19 of the AdministrativeTribunals Act, 1985._______________________________________________________Coram:Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.Whether approved for reporting? 1 NoFor the petitioner/Applicant.For the Respondents:/non-applicants: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Sr. Advocate withMr. Manish Sharma, Advocate for thepetitioner.Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. withMr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G.1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No

2____________________________________________________Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral).CMP (T) No. 38 of 2012:Applicant filed O.A. No.1527/1998 before theerstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal.This original application was transferred to this Courtafter the abolition of Tribunal and was re-registered asCWP (T) No. 5277 of 2008. Eight cases were disposed ofby this Court on 23.2.2010, including CWP (T) No. 5277of 2008, titled Krishan Lal versus State of HimachalPradesh and others. However, CWP (T) No. 5277 of2008 was not decided on 23.2.2010.2. Consequently, the application is allowed.Judgment dated 23.2.2010, qua CWP (T) No. 5277 of2008, is recalled.CWP (T) No. 5277/20083. Heard. Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned SeniorAdvocate for the petitioners submits that the tenureperiod rendered by his client followed by regularizationis to be counted for the purpose of increments andpension. This issue has already been decided by thisCourt in CWP No. 4550/2010, titled Ravi Kumar

3versus State of Himachal Pradesh and otherconnected matters on 16.12.2010.4. Consequently, this petition is disposed of.Respondents are directed to decide the case of thepetitioners in view of the principles laid down in theabove cited judgment, within a period a period of tenweeks from today. Pending application(s), if any, alsostands disposed of. No costs.23.5. 2012*awasthi*(Justice Rajiv Sharma),Judge.