IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7287 of 2025 Date of Decision: 5.5.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Neelam ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main relief:- “(i) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondent department by directing them to grant the petitioners the benefits of Higher Pay Stage by fixing the pay of the petitioners @ Rs.40100/- per month as on 01-04-2020 alongwith all consequential benefits including arrears of pay by getting fixation @ Rs.40100/- per month as on 01-04-2020 along with interest on delayed payment of higher pay stage benefit. The advice of the finance department as contained in annexure P-4 (i.e. letter dated 02-04-2024) may kindly be declared against the Annexure P-2 (i.e. Main rules) and P-3 (i.e. 1st amendment to rules).” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, states that issue - 2 - raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by this Court in CWP No. 4830 of 2023, titled as “Inder Sing Thakur and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr (alongwith connected matter), decided on 7.4.2025 and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide her representation in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 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. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioner, shall be decided expeditiously. 4. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by 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 this Court in Inder Singh Thakur (supra), as such, there appears to be no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. - 3 - 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-6) of the petitioner in light of judgment, as detailed hereinabove, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioners in the aforesaid judgment, she would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of the instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereupon. All pending applications stand disposed of. May 5, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge