IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL P RADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.633 of 2025 Date of Decision: 05.08.2025 ___________________________________________________________ Ramesh Kumar and Others ……...Petitioners Versus Sh. Ashish Kohli …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________________ For the Petitioners: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) While placing on record communication dated 02.08.2025, issued under the signatures of Director, Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, enclosing therewith copy of office order dated 01.08.2025, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that in terms of mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, respondent, after having considered the case of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 29.11.2024 passed in CWP No.1638 of 2024, titled as Mohit Sharma Vs. State of H.P. and Others, has passed detailed order dated 01.08.2025, thereby allowing higher pay scale in the concerned level of pay-matrix after completion of two years of regular service, subject to legal remedy, if any, exercised by the State. 2 2. Having perused aforesaid documents, which are taken on record, this Court finds merit in the contention of Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General and as such, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and accordingly the same are closed, however, DDO concerned, who has already been directed to fix the pay of the petitioner and release the arrear as per Finance Department instructions from time to time, is directed to ensure that needful in terms of the order dated 01.08.2025 passed by Director, School Education, Himachal Pradesh, is done expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks, failing which, petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived, so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials. Notices discharged. August 05, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge