IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6463 of 2024 Date of Decision: 04.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Piyush Giri & others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Dixit Sahotra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to pay the petitioners the difference in pay scale, applicable from 28.11.2018( date of initial contractual appointment) to 10.01.2022( date of regularization), as per the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services(Revised Pay) Rules 2022 alongwith all associated arrears of salary and allowances accrued during this period; (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction to the respondents to pay the petitioners their salaries in the higher pay scale of Rs. 30,500/- plus DA, as per their entitlement upon completion of two years of regular service post regularization from 10.01.2024 onwards and further direct the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 payment of arrears accrued since the date of eligibility under the revised pay scale.” 2. Before the case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel representing the petitioners states that at this stage he has instruction to press his relief with regard to higher stage of pay, which issue otherwise has been decided by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024, titled Mohit Sharma and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. He states that petitioners shall be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the issue with regard to higher stage of pay in light of Mohit Sharma’s case(supra), which has been otherwise implemented in other cases. 3. Though, respondent-State has filed reply, thereby refuting the claim of the petitioner, but learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum with regard to passing of judgment in Mohit Sharma’s case (supra), wherein issue with regard to higher stage of pay stands decided, states that in case representation is filed by the petitioner to consider his case in light of afore judgment, same shall be disposed of expeditiously. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioners to file representation to the competent authority within a period of one week, seeking therein relief 3 of higher stage of pay in terms of judgment passed in Mohit Sharma’s case (supra), which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority within period of two weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and pass appropriate order and in case petitioners are found entitled to the relief as has been granted in Mohit Sharma’s case (supra), they shall be granted similar benefits within a period of four weeks. Since while passing afore directions, this Court has not touched the other issues raised by the petitioners in the petition, petitioners, would be at liberty to raise the same in other petition, if proposed to be filed subsequently. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 04, 2025 (shankar)