1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8024 of 2025 Date of decision: 16.05.2025 Jitesh Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners : Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents. 2. This petition has been filed for grant of following substantive relief(s): - “1. That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant to the petitioners the benefit of higher stage of pay of Rs. 40100/- from the date the petitioners have completed two years of their respective regular service in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 4830/2023 titled Inder Singh Thakur & Ors versus State of H.P & others and further the respondents be directed that the pay of the petitioners be re-fixed from the date the petitioners have completed two years of their respective regular service and the respondents be directed to release to the petitioners all the consequential benefits along with arrears at the rate of 9% per annum. -2- 2. That the respondents may also be directed to release the arrears of pay after re-fixing the pay of the petitioners at Rs. 40100/- from the date the petitioners completed two years of their respective regular service along with interest @ 9% per annum.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue involved and the relief prayed for by the petitioners has already been adjudicated in Inder Singh Thakur & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. and Others1. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners would be content if the case of the petitioners 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 petitioners in light of the aforesaid judgment and pass 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. 1CWP No.4830 of 2023, decided on 07.04.2025 along with connected matter. -3- Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 16th May, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)