2025:HHC:32820-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.5337 of 2022 a/w CWP No.5340 of 2022 Decided on: 19.09.2025 __________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No.5337 of 2022 Sohan Singh Dogra ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents 2. CWP No.5340 of 2022 Revashankar Gaytri ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the petitioners: Mr. Narender Sharma, Ms. Meenakshi Sharma and Mr. Suraj Sharma, Advocates, in both the petitions. Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General for the respondents-State. For the respondents: Ms. Kiran Lata Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents- Board. Ranjan Sharma, Judge [Oral] Petitioners Sohan Singh Dogra [in CWP No.5337 of 2022 and petitioner Revashankar Gaytri 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:32820-DB ) - 2 - [in CWP No.5340 of 2022] have come up before this Court, seeking the prayer for quashing the Communication dated 04.06.2022, [Annexure P-4] and the communication dated 10.02.2022, seeking the following relief(s): “(i). To issue writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned communication dated 04.06.2022 Annexure P/4. (ii). To issue writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash communication/notification dated 10.02.2022. (iii). To issue writ in the nature of mandamus with a direction to the respondents to re-fix the pay of petitioner as per Annexure P/3 and release salary to the petitioner accordingly.” 2. Since the relief(s) prayed for in both the petitions is Para materia, therefore, with the consent of Learned Counsel for the parties, matters are taken up for adjudication together, at this stage. 3. During the pendency of the matters, Learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in CWPOA No. 6376 of 2020, titled Liaq Ram Kashyap versus Himachal Pradesh Marketing Board and others, decided on 29.04.2024 and in CWPOA No. 6335 of 2020, titled Gulab Chand versus Himachal Pradesh Marketing Board and others, decided on 28.10.2024, which were 2025:HHC:32820-DB ) - 3 - implemented by Respondent-Board on 09.07.2025 whereby, pay of Gulab Chand has been re-fixed in the applicable pay scale w.e.f. 16.06.2010 on notional basis and on actual basis from 16.07.2015. It was also pointed out that in terms of office order dated 04.06.2022, [Annexure P-4], the pay of Gulab Chand was re-fixed at Rs. 38,800/- whereas, the petitioners have been given a lower pay scale vis-à-vis Gulab Chand. In this background, petitioners are claiming parity in treatment in terms of basic pay as extended to Gulab Chand. 4. The matters were listed on 08.08.2025, when this Court passed the following orders:- “Heard for some time. 2. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in CWPOA No.6376 of 2020, titled as Liaq Ram Kashyap versus Himachal Pradesh Marketing Board and others and in CWPOA No.6335 of 2020, titled Gulab Chand versus Himachal Pradesh Marketing Board and others, decided on 28.10.2024 and the implementation orders dated 09.07.2025 whereby, pay of Gulab Chand has been re-fixed in the pay band of Rs.5910-20200+1900 grade pay with initial start of Rs.7810/- per month plus allowances w.e.f. 16.06.2010, on notional basis and on actual basis from 16.07.2015. Based on this, Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the Office Order dated 04.06.2022, [Annexure P-4], pay shown against serial No.9 at Rs.38,800/-, but fixed at Rs.37,700/-, in case of Gulab Chand has also been enhanced and rectified to Rs.38,800/-. 3. In these circumstances, Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the claim of petitioner(s) in principle is similar to that of 2025:HHC:32820-DB ) - 4 - Gulab Chand (supra). 4. Faced with this situation, Learned Counsel for the respondent prays for time to ascertain these facts. 5. Needless to say, that in case, the petitioners herein, are similarly placed vis-à-vis the petitioners in the judgment(s) in case of Liaq Ram Kashyap [CWPOA No.6376 of 2020, decided on 29.04.2024] which has been followed in case of Gulab Chand [supra] then, pendency of instant petition shall not come in the way of the respondent(s) to process the case and to release the admissible fixation benefits. As prayed for, list the matter after three weeks”. 5. The matters were again listed on 05.09.2025 and again on 12.09.2025, when Ms. Kiran Lata Sharma, Learned Counsel for the Respondents-Board has stated that the matter with respect to the grant of benefits in terms of the judgment in case of Liaq Ram Kashyap and Gulab Chand (supra) is under consideration. 6. Upon listing of matters today, Learned Counsel for the Respondents-Board has placed on record copy of the orders dated 12.09.2025 [Taken on Record] whereby, the benefit of pay fixation, on the analogy of the pay fixed, in case of Liaq Ram Kashyap and Gulab Chand has been extended to the petitioners also. 7. Perusal of the Order dated 12.09.2025 indicates that the present petitioners are similarly situated Clerks as mentioned in Appendix, along with 2025:HHC:32820-DB ) - 5 - aforesaid Office Order, who are admitted to be covered in terms of the judgment passed in case of Liaq Ram Kashyap (supra). It is further averred that in terms of litigation policy of the State, the Board of Management vide Resolution No. 12(6) has taken a decision on 06.05.2025, to extend same treatment to the petitioners and others on analogy of Liaq Ram Kashyap (supra). 8. In view of the above discussion, the instant petition(s) are disposed of, in the following terms: (i) Respondent-Board is directed to re-fix the pay of the petitioners, on the analogy of the benefit of re-fixation of pay granted as Clerk to Liaq Ram Kashyap (supra), in terms of Instructions dated 12.09.2025; by taking all effective steps, within four weeks from today. (ii) Petitioners shall be entitled to same benefits, as extended/granted to Liaq Ram Kashyap (supra), with all consequential benefits; (iii) Needless to say that the Respondent-Board shall extend all the consequential benefits to the petitioners within four weeks from today. (iv) Parties to bear respective costs. In aforesaid terms, the instant(s) petition are allowed and pending miscellaneous application(s) shall stand disposed of accordingly. (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 19th September, 2025 [himani]