IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.10932 of 2025 Decided on: 06.08.025 _________________________________________________________________ Supriya Sharma ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Aakash Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sikandar Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Ashok K. Tyagi, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ________________________________________________________________ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice issued to respondent No.2 has been duly served. Respondent is represented by its learned counsel. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage. 2. Petitioner feels aggrieved against rejection of his representation by respondent No.2 as conveyed in its office 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - communication dated 25.02.2025 (Annexure P-5). 3. Petitioner had represented to respondent No.2 on 23.12.2024 through proper channel, seeking benefit of higher pay structure in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022 on completion of two years of continuous service. The claim was made on the strength of decision rendered in Mohit Sharma and Anr. Vs. State of H.P. and others2. Respondent No.2 vide its communication dated 25.02.2025 (impugned herein) conveyed its decision to the District Legal Services Authority, Bilaspur that higher pay structure after completion of two years’ service cannot be granted to the petitioner in view of notification dated 06.09.2022. 4. A perusal of the decision conveyed in the impugned office letter makes it evident that while taking such decision, respondent No.2 has not even considered Mohit Sharma2 , on the basis of which, petitioner had staked her claim. For that reason alone, the impugned decision, as conveyed in the office communication dated 25.02.2025 (Annexure P-5) is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 is 2 CWP No. 1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024. - 3 - directed to consider the representation of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law, inter-alia, keeping in view Mohit Sharma2. Fresh exercise be carried out within four weeks. The decision so arrived at, be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge August 6, 2025 R.Atal