IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.10385 of 2025 Decided on: 28.06.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Sandhya Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Bhupinder Thakur and Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be. issued to the respondent department 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - by directing them to grant petitioner, the benefits of Higher Pay Stage by fixing the pay of the petitioner @ Rs 41600/- per month as on 13-11- 2020 along with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay by getting fixation @ Rs 41600/- per month as on 13-11-2020 along with interest on delayed payment of higher pay stage benefit. ii.) That case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgments passed by this Hon'ble court on dated 07-04-2025 passed in CWP 4830/23,as such entitled for the benefits of Higher Pay Stage by fixing the pay of the petitioner @ Rs 41600/- per month as on 13-11-2020 along with all consequential benefits.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relief prayed for and the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon in Inder Singh Thakur & Ors Vs. State of H.P. & Ors2. The grievance of the petitioner is that his representation dated 22.06.2025 (Annexure P-4) has still not been decided by the respondents/Competent Authority. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content in case respondent /Competent Authority is directed to decide the aforesaid representation within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this 2 CWP No. 4830 of 2023, decided alongwith connected matter on 07.04.2025. - 3 - prayer. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent /Competent Authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Inder Singh2 within a 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 Judge June 28, 2025 R.Atal