Decided On: October 10 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 15911 HP

           1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

                                                CWP No. 6418 of 2023
                                          Decided on: October 10, 2023
    ________________________________________________________
    Raj Rani                                         ........... Petitioner




                                                                                .
                                   Versus





    State of Himachal Pradesh and another               .. Respondents
    ________________________________________________________
    Coram:
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.





    Whether approved for reporting? 1

    For the Petitioner                     :      Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate.

    For the respondents                    :
                                  Mr. Anoop Rattan, Advocate General
                                  with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal





                                  Panwar and       Mr. B.C. Verma,
                                  Additional Advocates General & Mr.
                                  Ravi Chauhan & Ms. Sunaina,
                                  Deputy Advocates General.
    ________________________________________________________

    Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

By way of present petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution

of India, the petitioner have prayed for following main reliefs:

"A. That a writ of certiorari may kindly be issued and instructions dated 26.7.2014 may kindly be quashed and set aside and a writ of

mandamus may kindly be issued against the respondent department and the department be directed to grant revised initial pay scale of the

year of 2006 plus dearness pay (50% of the basic pay) to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2010 with all consequential benefits in view of the law laid down in CWPOA 77661 of 2019 titled as

Pushap Raj Khimta and others versus state of HP in the interest of justice and fair play."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that the issue

raised in the instant petition has been decided by this Court in Pushap

Raj Khimta and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others,

CWPOA No. 7661 of 2019, decided on 29.6.2022, and his client shall

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

be content and satisfied, in case a direction is issued to the

respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of

Pushap Raj Khimta supra, in a time bound manner.

.

3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General is not

averse to the innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

4. Consequently, in view of above, present petition is disposed of

with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of

the petitioner in light of Pushap Raj Khimta supra, within a period of

four weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the

needful in terms of this order, shall afford opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner and pass a speaking order thereafter. Liberty is reserved to

the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law,

if she still remains aggrieved.

5. The petition stands disposed of in the afore terms, alongwith all

pending applications.

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

October 10, 2023 Vikrant