IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8927 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Vinay Kumar Shukla …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner : Ms. Kirti Singh Thakur, Mr. Digvijay Singh Thakur, Mr. Saurabh Ahluwalia and Ms. Ankita, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed with the following substantive reliefs:- “i. That the respondent maybe issued appropriate writ, order or direction to pay the Grade pay of Rs.4200/- instead of Rs.3600/- w.e.f, 3.1.2015 and 7.1.2015. ii. That the respondents may be further directed to pay arrears with interest @ 12% per annum. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 iii. That the respondent may kindly be directed to pay honorarium to the petitioners as per Para Teacher (Lecturers School Cadre) Policy for which the petitioners admittedly serving as Para Teacher (Lecturers School Cadre).” 3. During hearing of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that case of the petitioner is squarely covered in terms of decision dated 03.11.2010 rendered in CWP-T No.2114 of 2008 (Mukesh Manhas & others vs. State of H.P & another) as well as dated 14.06.2023 passed in CWPOA No.3921/2020 (Shiv Dev & ors vs. State of H.P & anr.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be content in case a direction is issued to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for redressal of grievance raised by him in the instant petition in light of the aforesaid judgments within a time bound schedule. 4. The prayer is not opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General. 5. Having regard with the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.2/competent authority to decide the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgments in accordance with law. This entire exercise 3 shall be carried out within six weeks from today. Copy of the order be also communicated to the petitioner. All pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 28, 2025 (Sunil)