IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9102 of 2025 Decided on: 2nd June, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rinku Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath and Mr. Piyush Mehta, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- “i) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to extend the benefits of the Notifications dated 03.01.2022 & 06.09.2022 and Grant Higher Stage of Pay in the concerned level of Pay Matrix i.e. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Rs.30500/- as per Notification dated 06.09.2022 w.e.f. 22.12.2024 and fix his pay from due date i.e. after completion of two years of regular service alongwith all consequential benefits including the arrears along with interest @ 9%.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner for fixing his pay at higher pay stage after completion of two years of regular service under office communication dated 10.02.2025 (Annexure P-7). That respondents’ decision as conveyed in the aforesaid office letter is contrary to the decision rendered in Mohit Sharma & Anr. Versus State of H.P. & Ors.2. That the decision in Mohit Sharma2 has attained finality and the respondents have also implemented this decision. Learned Additional Advocate General does not dispute the above factual position. 4. In view of the factual position, notwithstanding the decision taken by the respondents in office communication dated 10.02.2025 (Annexure P-7), this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of relief prayed for by him afresh in accordance with law and strictly in light of the aforesaid decision in Mohit Sharma2 within a 2 CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024 3 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 June 02, 2025 Judge Mukesh