IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 9728/2025 Decided on: 18.06.2025 Sumit Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. M.A. Safee and Mr. Pranav Kaushal, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief: - “ That a writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued directing the Respondents to extend the benefit of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised pay) Rules, 2022 after taking into account the services rendered by him on contract basis as having been appointed prior to 03.01.2022, in terms of Rule 7A, as 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 incorporated vide Notification dated 06.09.2022, and he be granted the Higher Stage of Pay i.e. 30500/- from the date he has completed two years of regular service, as has been held by the Hon'ble High Court in Mohit Sharma Case (Supra). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved and the relief prayed for by the petitioner have already been adjudicated in Mohit Sharma and Anr. Vs. State of H.P. and others2. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has preferred a representation on 23.04.2025 (Annexure P-7) to respondent No.3/competent authority for grant of higher grade pay, however, no concrete action on his representation has been taken till date. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner would be content, in case, he is permitted to furnish a fresh representation to respondent No.3/competent authority, whereafter, the said respondent/competent authority, be directed to decide the representation to be made by him, in a time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to this prayer. 4. In view of above & looking into the grievance of the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make a fresh representation to respondent No.3/competent authority, within a period of two weeks from today, who shall in turn, consider and decide the same, in accordance with law and in terms of 2 CWP No. 1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024 3 aforesaid judgment, within a further period of six weeks. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge June 18, 2025(rohit)