2025:HHC:14465 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.506 of 2019 Decided on: 19.05.2025 Vijay Kumar Bhan ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Addl.A.G., for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Lokender Paul Thakur, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent No.3. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) The instant petition has been filed for the following substantive relief: “A. That the order dated 25.10.2014(Annexure P-7) may be quashed and set aside. B. That the order dated 7.11.2012 (Annexure P-2) may be held to be valid and the petitioner may be allowed to continue with the revised pension with all consequential benefits admissible to him on the basis of order dated 7.11.2012. C. That the respondents may be directed not to effect any recoveries from the petitioner on the basis and in furtherance of order dated 25.10.2014.” 2 The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 25.10.2014, Annexure P-7, whereby the amount alleged to be paid to the petitioner on account of wrong stepping up of pay was ordered to be recovered. 3. The impugned order clearly reveals that the impugned action was taken against petitioner for the reason that similar benefit of stepping up was granted to one Shri Raj Kumar Sud and that had been subsequently withdrawn vide order dated 29.07.2013. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner on 02.04.2025 had submitted that Shri Raj Kumar Sud had assailed the order dated 29.07.2013, whereby the benefit of stepping up of pay in his case was withdrawn by way of CWPOA No.2646 of 2019, which has been allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 12.07.2024. She had also placed on record a copy of judgment dated 12.07.2024 passed by this Court in CWPOA No.2646 of 2019, titled Raj Kumar Sud vs. State of H.P. & Anr.. 5. On that date i.e. 02.04.2025, it was informed by learned Additional Advocate General that the State had filed Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment in CWPOA No.2646 of 2019 on the basis of instructions dated 29.03.2025 issued by Engineer-in-Chief, H.P. PWD, Shimla. 3 6. Today on inquiry as to the fate of LPA filed by the State, it has been disclosed that the said LPA has not yet been listed in the Court. On the other hand, Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed on record a copy of order dated 25.04.2025, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in COPC No.628 of 2024. She submits that the above noted proceedings have been initiated by Raj Kumar Sud for non-compliance of judgment dated 12.07.2024 passed in CWPOA No.2646 of 2019. 7. A perusal of order dated 25.04.2025 in COPC No.628 of 2024 reveals that the instructions memo issued by Engineer-in-Chief, H.P. PWD was placed on record according to which amount payable to Raj Kumar Sud was Rs.16,59,026/-, out of which a sum of Rs.10,56,028/- was stated to have already been paid to Shri Raj Kumar Sud. 8. The above conduct of respondents-State clearly reveals that the State is in process of implementing the judgment in Raj Kumar Sud. Thus, the facts of the instant case being totally covered by the judgment passed by this Court in CWPOA No.2646 of 2019, titled Raj Kumar Sud vs. State of H.P. & Anr. do not call for any other order or judgment except as has been passed in the case of Raj Kumar Sud (supra). 4 9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed in terms of judgment passed in CWPOA No.2646 of 2019, titled Raj Kumar Sud vs. State of H.P. & Anr. and it is held that the petitioner is entitled to same benefits as have been granted to the petitioner in CWPOA No.2646 of 2019, titled Raj Kumar Sud vs. State of H.P. & Anr. The entire exercise shall be completed by the respondents within eight weeks from today. Petition is accordingly disposed of. 10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge May 19, 2025 (vt)