Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 06.05.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors on 6 May, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2025:HHC:12818
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.7291 of 2025
Date of Decision: 06.05.2025
_____________________________________________________________________
Balbir Rana and Ors.
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioners: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel, Advocate.
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, petitioners have prayed for the
following main relief:-
"(i) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be
issued to the respondent department by directing them to grant
the petitioners the benefits of Higher Pay Stage by fixing the pay
of the petitioners @ Rs.40100/- per month as on 01-04-2020
alongwith all consequential benefits including arrears of pay by
getting fixation @ Rs.40100/- per month as on 01-04-2020 along
with interest on delayed payment of higher pay stage benefit.
The advice of the finance department as contained in annexure
P-5 (i.e. letter dated 02-04-2024) may kindly be declared against
the Annexure P-3 (i.e. Main rules) and P-4 (i.e. 1st amendment to
rules)."
2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be
received, learned counsel representing the petitioners, states that
issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by
this Court in CWP No. 4830 of 2023, titled as "Inder Singh Thakur
and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr (alongwith
connected matter), decided on 7.4.2025 and as such, petitioners
would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the
respondents to consider and decide their representation 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. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. While accepting
notice on behalf of the respondents, learned Deputy Advocate General,
fairly states that representations (Annexure P-7) filed by the
petitioners, 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 Inder Singh
Thakur (supra), as such, there appears to be no impediment in
issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the
representation of the petitioners 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-7) of the petitioners in light of
judgment, as detailed hereinabove, expeditiously, preferably within a
period of six weeks. In case, petitioners are found to be similarly
situate to the petitioners in the aforesaid judgment, they 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 petitioners and pass speaking order
thereupon. All pending applications stand disposed of.
May 5, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma),
(sunil) Judge
