IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.8112 of 2025 Decided on: 20th May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Ghanshyam Swroop Chainta ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “I That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant to the petitioner the benefit of higher stage of pay of Rs. 40100/- from the date the petitioner has 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - completed two years of regular service i.e. 12.10.2019 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 petitioner be re-fixed w.e.f 12.10.2019 and the respondents be directed to release to the petitioner all the consequential benefits along with arrears at the rate of 9% per annum. 2. That the respondents may also be directed to release the arrears of pay after re-fixing the pay of the petitioner at Rs. 40100/- w.e.f the date the petitioner completed two years of regular service i.e. 12.10.2019” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relief prayed for and the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon in Inder Singh Thakur & Ors Vs. State of H.P. & Ors2. The grievance of the petitioner is that his representation dated 21.04.2025 (Annexure P-2) has still not been decided by the respondents/Competent Authority. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content in case respondent /Competent Authority is directed to decide the aforesaid representation within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this 2 CWP No. 4830 of 2023, decided alongwith connected matter on 07.04.2025. - 3 - prayer. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent /Competent Authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Inder Singh2 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge May 20, 2025 R.Atal