IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8695 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Chanchal Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs: “(i) Issue an appropriate writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to grant the petitioner the behalf of higher stage of pay scale (Rs.37,600/-) w.e.f. April, 2024, upon completion of two years of regular service, in accordance with Rule7 (A) of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) First Amendment Rules, 2022 and in parity with similarly situated employees as per the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No. 1638 of 2024, Mohit Sharma and Ors. versus State of H.P. annexed as Annexure P-1. (ii) Direct the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 09.12.2024 (Annexure P-2) submitted by the petitioner within a time bound manner. (iii) Quash and set aside the inaction of the respondents in not granting the higher pay scale to the petitioner, being arbitrary, 2 discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment passed by Coordinate Bench this Court in CWP No. 1638 of 2024 titled Mohit Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Coordinate Bench this Court in Mohit Sharma (supra) and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider the representation (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided 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 with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-2) in light of Mohit Sharma (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, 3 while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. May 26, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Manjit Judge