IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5099 of 2024 Date of Decision: 25.04.2025 __________________________________________________________ Kusum Lata and Others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Another ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main reliefs:- “A). It is therefore, respectfully prayed that keeping in view the averments made in the present petition the present petition may kindly be allowed & the respondents may please be directed to grant /release the pay scale of Rs 37400- 67000+9000(AGP) to the petitioners after a period of 3 years from the grant of Senior scale & Selection Grade, as has been done in the cases of Sh. Sant Ram Chauhan & Sh. Laiq Ram Chauhan while doing their fixations, with the further prayer to release the arrears of the same to the petitioners with interest @ 18% per annum, till the date of actual payment from the due & admissible dates, for which they are legally & validly entitled, as has been granted to other similarly situated persons & in the interest of justice. B). That the respondents may also be directed to produce the entire & complete records including the day to day noting sheets in the case of 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioners as also in the case of Sh. Sant Ram & Sh. Laiq Ram Chauhan & various other persons, to show unto this Hon'ble Court that how best the honest & sincere employees of the department can be harassed.” 2. Before reply, if any, could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioners while referring to the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.7526 of 2021, titled Laiq Ram Sharma and Another Vs. State of H.P. and Another, decided on 17.10.2023, along with connected matters, which has been further upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.356 of 2024, titled State of H.P. and Another Vs. Kartar Chand, decided on 09.01.2025, and further upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.8418-8420 of 2020, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and Another Vs. Laiq Ram Sharma and Others, states that issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in the afore cases. He states that petitioners would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgments, in a time bound manner. 3. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, fairly states that he is not averse to afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. 4. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by way of affidavit, vis-a-vis judgment sought to be 3 relied upon, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, learned counsel representing the petitioners that the issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in Laiq Ram Sharma case (supra) and as such, no prejudice, if any, shall be caused to either of the parties, in case, prayer made on behalf of the petitioners is accepted. Moreover, this Court has also been apprised that in similar cases, undertaking has already been filed by the respondents for implementation of the same. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, 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 petitioners in light of judgments, as detailed hereinabove, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks. 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 petitioners and pass detailed speaking order taking note of judgments, as detailed hereinabove. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 25, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)