IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos. 8218 & 8342/2025 Decided on: 29.05.2025 1. CWP No.8218/2025 Gopal Krishan & Anr. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 2. CWP No.8342/2025 Anjana Kumari …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. ……………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Surinder Prakash Sharma, Advocate in both the petitions. For the respondent(s): Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General in both the petitions. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents in both the petitions. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost common substantive reliefs. Relief clause herein is extracted from CWP No. 8218/2025:- “That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent department to pay to the Petitioner No. 1 the initial of the pay scale attached to the post of TGT (Arts) for his contractual period i.e. w.e.f. August, 1998 to November, 2009 and also to pay to the Petitioner No. 2 the initial of the pay scale attached to the post of TGT (Non-Medical) for his contractual period i.e. w.e.f. 01.04.1998 to 23.12.2008 and revised from time to time, in light of the ratio laid down by this Hon'ble Court in LPA No. 105/2010 alongwith connected matters (Annexure P-1).” 3. It is seen from the record that the petitioner(s) have not filed any representation(s) to the respondents/competent authority for the redressal of their grievances raised in these writ petitions. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that the petitioner(s) would be content, in case, they are permitted to furnish their respective representation(s) to the respondents/competent authority, whereafter, the said respondents/competent authority, be directed to decide the representation(s) to be made by them, in a time bound manner. Learned Deputy Advocate General has no objection to this prayer. 5. In view of above, these writ petitions are disposed of by permitting the petitioner(s) to make their respective representation(s) to the respondents/competent authority, within a period of two weeks 3 from today, who shall in turn, consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, 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 2nd June, 2025(rohit)