IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10950 of 2025 Decided on: 9th July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bandna Kumari …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Hemant K. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Rajat Choudhry, learned Assistant Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i. That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to grant the benefits of High Stage of Pay i.e. Rs.37,600/- to the petitioner on completion of 2 years of regular service as JOA (IT) in accordance with notification dated 06.09.2022 (Annexure P-3) in the interest of justice of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised pay) Rules, 2022, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has completed two years of regular service as on 18.01.2024. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 ii. That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 1638 of 2024 titled as Mohit Sharma & another Vs. State of H.P, and CWP 14628 of 2024 titled as Sanjeev Vardhan Vs. State of HP & others, in a time bound manner. iii. That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant and release the actual monetary benefits i.e. arrears of salary, to the petitioner, from the date of initial appointment along with 12% interest, in a time bound manner. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner has invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without even preferring any representation to the competent authority for the redressal of her grievances raised in the writ petition. 4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be preferring a representation within two weeks from today. In case such a representation is so made, the same shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law within a period of six weeks thereafter. The order so passed 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 July 09, 2025 Judge Mukesh