IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10845 of 2025 Decided on: 9th July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sunil Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sourav Sharma and Mr. Rocky, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional 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:- “a) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction to the respondent for extending the benefits of Revised Pay Rules 2022 by revising the fixed salary of contractual period to minimum of revised pay band + Grade Pay along with such hike i.e Level 10 (Rs.38,100) in view of Judgment passed in CWP No.2056 of 2023 titled as Ghanshyam Dass Versus State Of HP & Ors. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent department to extend the benefit of revised Pay Rules, 2022 amended on 06.09.2022 by inserting Rule 7-A by granting higher stage of pay for some categories, posts as per schedule-II after completion of two years of regular service by revising the salary (Sr. No.30 TGT) Rs.38100/- to Rs.41600/- as per the judgment dated 29.11.2024 passed in CWP No.1638 of 2024, titled as Mohit Sharma & Anr. V/s State of H.P. & Ors. in the interest of justice.” 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 his 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