IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5844 of 2024 Decided on: 1st September, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Naveen Kumar Bimal and another …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “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-6 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 petitioners at Revised rate of initial start of pay scale of PO post (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to regular employees holding the same post of PO w.e.f. 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 date of joining on contract appointment till their regularization 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 petitioners for service rendered by petitioners in the department on contract basis till their regularization in the department.” 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue raised in this writ petition has already been adjudicated upon in Yashwant Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Ors.2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners would be satisfied in case they are permitted to make a representation to respondent No.3/competent authority for grant of above reliefs, whereafter, the said authority be directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with the aforesaid judgment within a time bound schedule. Learned Assistant Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioners to prefer a representation to respondent No.3/competent authority within a period of two weeks from today, whereafter, the same shall be considered and decided by the said authority 2 CWP No.8148 of 2022, decided alongwith connected matters on 21.03.2024 3 in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Yashwant Kumar2 within a further period of six weeks. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 01, 2025 Judge Mukesh