IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4729 of 2022 Date of Decision: 23.06.2025 __________________________________________________________ Inder Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Diwan Singh Negi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): CMP No.13892 of 2025 For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and with the consent of parties, case at hand is taken up for hearing today itself. Application stands disposed of. CWP No.4729 of 2022 2. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “a) A writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents Department to kindly pay the higher pay scale of Clerk to the petitioner (WWC) from 2003 onward up till 22.06.2019 for performance of actual work/duties/ of Clerk/Jr. Asstt./Sr. Asstt./Steno- typist on the principle of equal pay for equal work. b) That the respondents may kindly be directed to kindly merge/club the post of WWC with the post of Clerk and pay the consequential benefits t the petitioner w.e.f. 05.12.2003 and in the alternative 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 respondents may kindly be directed to grant the benefit of 4-9-14 scale under new ACPS to the petitioner on the post of WWC on which the petitioner remain stagnated for about 16 years without any promotional avenues.” 3. Though by way of reply to the petition, claim, as put forth by the petitioner, has been refuted by the respondents, but before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, learned counsel representing the petitioner while referring to the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.39 of 2022, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and Others Vs. Piyar Chand, decided on 28.04.2022, states that issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in the afore case. He states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment, in a time bound manner. 4. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that he is not averse to afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Consequently, in view of fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, 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 Piyar Chand case (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned 3 while doing the needful in terms of instant order shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order taking note of judgment, as detailed hereinabove and in case petitioner is found similar situate to the petitioner in afore case, then he shall also be granted similar benefits. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 23, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)