IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 11166 & 11170/2025 Decided on: 24.07.2025 1. CWP No. 11166/2025 Kiran Rana …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 2. CWP No. 11170/2025 Namna Kumari …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Yogesh Chandel, Advocate in both the petitions. For the respondent(s): Mr. Y.P.S Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, in both the petitions. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents in both the petitions. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost common substantive reliefs. Relief clause herein is extracted from CWP No. 11166/2025:- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 “i) That the writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued to quash and set aside the notification dated 12-01-2022 i.e. Annexure P-5 as far as it provide the revised emoluments of contract employees @ 60% of minimum of pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to regular employees holding the same post. ii) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents by directing to pay the revised emoluments for contract period of the petitioner @ minimum of pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to regular employees holding the same post of TGT w.e.f. 01-01-2016 till regularization of service along with 3% annual hike. The arrears with interests at market rate on delay payment, on account of revision @ minimum of pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to regular employees holding the same post w.e.f. 01-01-2016, shall also be paid to the petitioner for service rendered in the department on contract basis w.e.f. 01-01- 2016 till regularization of service in the department.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that the issue involved in these writ petitions is covered by Yashwant Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner(s) would be content in case, they are permitted to submit their respective representations to the respondents/competent authority, whereafter, the respondents/competent authority, be directed to decide the representations to be made by them, in accordance with law and in light of above decision, in a time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to this prayer. 2 CWP No. 8184/2022 a/w connected matters decided on 21.03.2024 3 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matters, these writ petitions are disposed of by permitting the petitioner(s) to make their respective representations to the respondents/competent authority, within a period of two weeks from today, who shall in turn, consider and decide the same, in accordance with law and in terms of above decisions, within a further period of six weeks. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner(s). Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 24th July, 2025(rohit)