IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8585 of 2025 Date of Decision: 23.5.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Dalip Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocate. s For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main relief:- “(i) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to grant the pay scale of Rs. 5480-8925 as is prescribed to the post of Shastri teacher instead of pay scale of Rs.5000-8100 as was granted to him on his initial appointment on 20.9.2000, with all consequential benefits and the arrears accrued thereunder may very kindly be ordered to be released with interest @ 9% per annum., in the interest of justice.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by this Court in CWP No. 3341 of 2019, case titled as “Madan Lal Sharma - 2 - v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr, decided on 4.9.2021 and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide his representation (Annexure P-3) in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation (Annexure P-3) filed by the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 4. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by this Court in Madan Lal (supra), as such, there appears to be no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner in light of - 3 - judgment, as detailed hereinabove, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioners in the aforesaid judgment, he would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of the instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon. All pending applications stand disposed of. May 23, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge