Shri Puran Chand and Smt. Poonam Kumari vs State of H.P.

V.K. Sharma, Judge

The present review petition under order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( in short ''CPC''), has been filed by the petitioners seeking review of judgment dated 1.9.2011, passed by this Court in CWP(T) No. 10399 of 2008, Sh. Puran Chand and another Versus State of H.P. and others. The petitioners herein who were also the petitioners in the aforesaid CWP(T) No. 10399 of 2008, had filed the said petition on twofold prayers as under:-

(i). That the impugned orders dated 23.5.2003 and 2.8.2003 so far the same pertains to grant of revised pay scale to the contract teachers/lecturers may be declared to be validly issued and the applicants may be held entitled for all consequential benefits along with interest at some nationalized bank rate.

(ii). That the Annexure A-1 and Annexure A 2 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

After noticing the stand on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 in the said petition, who have been arraigned as such in the present review petition and on the basis of the statement made by the learned Addl. Advocate General, assisted by the learned Dy. Advocate General, on behalf of the respondents that the case of the petitioners was covered under judgment dated 2.12.2009, rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP(T) No. 10806 of 2008, Inder Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, the petition was disposed of in the following terms vide para 4 of the aforesaid judgment dated 1.9.2011, in CWP(T) No. 10399 of 2008:-

In view of the above, if on facts, the case of the petitioners is covered under the judgment referred to hereinabove in CWP (T) No. 10806 of 2008, Inder Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, and the same has attained finality and has been implemented and the petitioners are similarly situate, they shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and benefit of the said judgment along with consequential benefits, if any, shall be extended to them within three months from the date of production of copies of this judgment and the judgment referred to hereinabove by the petitioners before the respondents/competent authority.

Now by filing the present review petition it is represented on behalf of the petitioners that in fact the case of the petitioners with regard to prayer (ii) as above alone was covered under the aforesaid judgment dated 2.12.2009, in CWP(T) No. 10806 of 2008, Inder Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others and prayer (i) was not covered there under. According to the petitioners prayer (i) is covered under the judgment dated 30.11.2010, passed by this Court in CWP(T) No. 6037 of 2008, H.P. Rajkiya Prathmik Anubandh Adhyapak Sangh versus State of H.P. & another, which aspect of the matter is also admitted to be correct on behalf of the respondents as per statement made at the bar by the learned Dy. Advocate General.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and as a consequence the aforesaid judgment dated 1.9.2011, in CWP(T) No. 10399 of 2008, is reviewed as under, so as to include the additional relief as additional para 5 to the said judgment dated 1.9.2011, in CWP(T) No. 10399 of 2008:-

Further, If on facts, the case of the petitioners qua prayer (i) is also covered under the aforesaid judgment dated 30.11.2010, passed in CWP(T) No. 6037 of 2008, H.P. Rajkiya Prathmik Anubandh Adhyapak Sangh versus State of H.P. and another and the same has attained finality and has been implemented and the petitioners are similarly situate, they shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and benefit of the said judgment along with consequential benefits, if any, shall also be extended to them within three months from the date of production of copies of this judgment and the judgments referred to hereinabove by the petitioners before the respondents/competent authority.

The review petition stands disposed of in the above terms.