IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10445 of 2025 Date of Decision: 30.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Manu Dev Sharma …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Tara Chand Chauhan, Advocate, respondent No.5- Accountant General (A & E). ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “I. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to grant to the Petitioner the benefit of higher pay of Rs.41,600/- from the date the Petitioner completed two years of regular service, i.e., 28.01.2024, in terms of the Notification dated 06.09.2022, and in light of the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024 titled as Mohit Sharma Vs. State of H.P. & Ors, in the interest of justice; 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 II. Issue order or directions to the Respondents to release the arrears of pay after re-fixing the pay of the Petitioner @ Rs.41,600/- from the date the Petitioner completed two years of his regular service alongwith interest.” 2. Before reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case his pending representation (Annexure P-6) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024, titled as Mohit Sharma and Another Vs. State of H.P. and Others, in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-6) of the petitioner expeditiously, 3 preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mohit Sharma case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 30, 2025 (Shamsh Tabrez)