CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Duni Chand vs State of H.P. and others

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 4 November 2011 · Citation: (2011) 11 SHI CK 0016

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.K. Ahuja, J · Kurian Joseph, J
CASE NUMBER
CWP No. 9241 of 2011-E
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 376 words

Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: -

i) That the respondents may be directed to release/restore the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925 to the petitioner from the date of initial appointment and then from the date of regularization; as revised from time to time w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and then w.e.f. 1.1.2006 till day as OT/Shastri teacher; without discriminating the petitioner when this pay scale has been restored and released to Sh. Mohinder Singh and many other similarly placed Shastri/OT teachers as in ground (c) above; on the basis of the judgments passed by this Hon''ble Court in CWP(T) No. 2903 of 2008 vide Annexures P-4; LPA No. 107/2009 dat3ed 30.3.2010 vide Annexure P-5 which also stands implemented as per letter dated 31.7.2010 vide Annexure P-6 forthwith.

ii) That the action of reducing the pay scale of the petitioner from Rs. 1640-2925 to Rs. 1500-2700 illegally may kindly be quashed and set aside.

iii) That the respondents may be directed to restore the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925 as revised from time to time, to the petitioner with all consequential benefits forthwith.

iv) That the action of the respondents in not acting upon the legal notice dated 3.10.2011 vide Annexure P-7 and in not releasing the pay scale in terms of the judgments vide Annexures P-4 and Annexure P-5 may kindly be held as discriminatory, malafide and illegal.

2.

It is seen that the issue is covered by the decision of this Court in State of H.P. Mahinder Singh, decided on 30th March, 2011 in LPA No. 1067 of 2009 and subsequently followed in many cases. One such subsequent judgment is dated 28th February, 2011 in CWP Nos. 807 and 808 of 2011. In case the petitioner is similarly situated as the incumbent covered by the judgment, referred to above, a similar treatment shall be given to the petitioner herein also. Needful in this behalf shall be done within a period of two months from the date of production of the copy of this judgment alongwith the copy of the decisions referred to above and the copy of the writ petition by the petitioner before the second respondent.

3.

The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.