IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.8120 of 2019 Decided on: 01.04.2025 Anupam ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. Onkar Jairath and Mr. Piyush Mehta, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents- State. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) The instant petition has been filed for following substantive reliefs: “I. That the Respondents may be directed to release the Grant-in-Aid in favour of the Applicant from the date of her initial appointment i.e. w.e.f. 20.07.2015. II. That the Respondents may further be directed to allow the Applicant to continue his duties as Assistant Professor (Physics) in Rajiv Gandhi Memorial Government College, Jogindernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh continuously and uninterruptedly. 2 III. That the Respondents may be directed to release the Grant-In-Aid @rate of 9% on the delayed payment of such Grant-in-Aid.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Assistant Professor (Physics) in Rajiv Gandhi Memorial Government College, Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P. w.e.f. 20th July, 2015. It is alleged that the petitioner was appointed in terms of PTA policy and she was entitled to grant-in-aid, but she has been continued in the same service on fixed remuneration. In this backdrop, the petitioner has claimed that she is entitled for salary after release of grant-in-aid in her favour from the date of her initial appointment i.e. 20.07.2015, 3. During the course of hearing of this petition on 29.11.2024, an order to the following effect was passed by this Court: “Learned counsel for the petitioner states that case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court, in CWP No.2218 of 2018, titled Sangeeta Devi and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 11.03.2019, against which Review Petition No. 20 of 2019, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Sangeeta Devi, decided on 27.09.2023, has also been dismissed. It is further averred that the judgment in case of Sangeeta Devi has been implemented and 3 the case of the petitioner is akin to that of Sangeeta Devi supra.” 4. In compliance to aforesaid order, the respondents placed on record instructions dated 10.03.2025 by way of which, it has been specifically admitted that the case of petitioner is similar to the case decided by this Court vide judgment dated 11.03.2019 in CWP No.2218 of 2018, titled Sangeeta Devi & others vs. State of H.P. & others. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the respondents have admitted that the case of the petitioner is similar to the case of Sangeeta Devi (supra), the petitioner shall also be entitled to the relief as granted to the petitioner in CWP No.2218 of 2018. He further submits that the respondent-State has implemented the aforesaid judgment in CWP No.2218 of 2018. 6. In view of admission made by the respondents, the petitioner cannot be treated differently than the petitioner in CWP No.2218 of 2018, titled Sangeeta Devi & others vs. State of H.P. & others. The respondents in such circumstances, are liable to grant the same benefits to the petitioner as has been granted to the petitioner in CWP No.2218 of 2018, in case the judgment in said case has been implemented. 4 7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant all the benefits to the petitioner as have been granted to the petitioner in CWP No.2218 of 2018, in case the judgment in said case stands implemented. Entire exercise shall be completed in eight weeks from today failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum. 8. Petition is accordingly disposed of along with pending application(s), if any. ( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge April 01, 2025 (vt)