IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4423 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.3.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Gian Chand ......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. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G. with Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate General for the respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main relief:- “(a) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued and the respondents may kindly be directed to grant petitioner the revised pay scale of Rs.4550-7220 by fixing them at the lowest level i.e. Rs.4550 plus allowances as admissible from time to time along with consequential benefits along with interest at the rate of 9% in the interest of justice. (b) That the respondents may be directed to give all the consequential benefit to the petitioners during the pendency of the present writ petition.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment dated 30.10.2010 passed by - 2 - Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP(T) No. 6037 of 2008 titled as H.P Rajkiya Prathmic Anubandh Adhyapak Sangh Vs State of H.P & anr states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Coordinate Bench of this Court in afore judgment and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 3. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General while putting appearance on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 states that he is not averse to the innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 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. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation (Annexure P-3) filed by the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 4. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported with 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 a Co-ordinate Bench of this - 3 - Court after passing judgment in H.P Rajkiya Prathmic Anubandh Adhyapak Sangh (supra) and as such, there appears to be no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-3) 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-3) of the petitioner in light of judgment, as detailed hereinabove, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. 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 speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. March 26, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma) mamta Judge