Himachal Pradesh High Court
_____________________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors on 1 May, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.6935 of 2025
Date of Decision: 1.5.2025
_____________________________________________________________________
Pawan Kumar Sharma
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Raj Thakur, Advocate.
s
For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr.
Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.
Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr.
Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the
following main relief:-
"(i) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to grant
the pay scale of Rs. 5480-8925 as is prescribed to the post of
Shastri teacher instead of pay scale of Rs.5000-8100 as was
granted to him on his initial appointment on 01.04.1999, with all
consequential benefits and the arrears accrued thereunder may
very kindly be ordered to be released with interest @ 9% p.a., in
the interest of justice."
2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be
received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, states that issue
raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by this
Court in CWP No. 3341 of 2019, case titled as "Madan Lal Sharma
v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr, decided on 4.9.2021 and as
such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are
issued to the respondents to consider and decide his representation
(Annexure P-2) in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner.
3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed
to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call
for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by
Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. While
accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, learned Additional
Advocate General, fairly states that representations (Annexure P-2)
filed by the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided
expeditiously.
4. Having perused averments contained in the petition,
which are duly supported by an affidavit vis-a-vis judgment sought to
be relied upon, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant
proceedings already stands adjudicated by this Court in Madan Lal
(supra), as such, there appears to be no impediment in issuing
direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation
of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound
manner.
5. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is
disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide
the representation (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner in light of
judgment, as detailed hereinabove, expeditiously, preferably within a
period of four weeks. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate
to the petitioners in the aforesaid judgment, he would be extended
similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the
needful in terms of the instant order shall afford an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon. All
pending applications stand disposed of.
May 1, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma),
(manjit) Judge
