IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4842 of 2024 Date of decision: 03.01.2025 Rama. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. For the respondent : Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Though the respondents have not filed reply to the writ petition, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties matter is taken up for disposal at this stage. 2. This petition has been filed for grant of following reliefs: - “(a) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued thereby quashing and setting aside the order dated 22.2.2024 (Annexure P-5). (b) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing respondents to grant benefit of rule 7(A) to the petitioner by fixing her pay as on 1.10.2023 in higher pay band of Rs.10300-34800+3200 grade pay, and also fix her pay in revised pay rules 2022 in the corresponding pay matrix/level. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- (c) That writ is the nature of mandamus may also kindly be issued there by directing the respondent to consider the date of rejoining of the petitioner as 02.01.2022 since the same was Sunday on this count the rejoining was submitted on 03.01.2022. (d) That writ is the nature of mandamus may also kindly be issued, directing the respondent to paying the arrears /dues of the petitioner which have wrongly been not release in favour of the petitioner. (e) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay and calculate arrears of pay on account of grant of above prayers.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved and the relief prayed for by the petitioner has already been adjudicated Mohit Sharma and Anr. Vs. State of H.P. and Others1. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would be content if the case of the petitioner is considered by the respondents in light of the aforesaid judgment within a time-bound schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to this prayer. 4. Having regard to above submissions but without examining the merits of the matter, this petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment and pass 1CWP No. 1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024. -3- appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The decision so arrived at, shall be communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 3rd January, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)