_____________________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 188 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

_____________________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 1 May, 2025

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                               CWP No.3583 of 2025
                                       Date of Decision: 01.05.2025
_____________________________________________________________________
Jagdish Chand                                                .........Petitioner
                                          Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.                           .......Respondents

Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner:        Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan
                     Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma,
                     Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi
                     Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for
                     respondents-State.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the

following main reliefs:

"(i) To direct respondents to grant the petitioner regular pay Scale of Rs. 5,480-8,925 + allowances, as is legally prescribed to the post of Shastri teachers, instead of Rs. 5,000-8,100 +allowances, from the date of her initial appointment i.e. 26.09.2003, with all the consequential benefits and the arrears accrued there under with interest @9% per annum till realisation of the amount in the interest of justice and fair play.

(ii) To decide the representation in a time bound manner."

2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be

received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions,

states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case his case is

considered and decided in the light of judgment passed by Coordinate

Bench this Court in CWP No. 3341 of 2019 titled Madan Lal Sharma

Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.

3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr.

Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is

not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the

petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be

considered and decided expeditiously.

3. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted

by learned Additional Advocate General, coupled with the fact that

petitioner has already filed representation for redressal of his

grievance (Annexure P-4), this Court, without going into the merits of

the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction

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

light of judgment passed by this Court in Madan Lal Sharma (supra),

expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from today.

Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing

the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of

being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter.

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

May 01, 2025                                    (Sandeep Sharma),
     (sunil)                                         Judge