IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.7754 of 2023 Decided on: 03.07.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Sudershan Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Aman Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ________________________________________________________________ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Even though the respondents have not filed reply, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage. 2. This petition has been filed for grant of following reliefs: - “a). That the Impugned Orders dated 06.09.23 Annexure P-1, Annexure P- 2 dated 26th July 2016 and Letter dated 1.09.2015 Annexure P-5 may be set aside and quashed. The recovery and re-fixation if any 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - may be set aside and quashed. b) To issue Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to reduce the initial start of Pay of Rs 14430 as has been allowed to the Petitioner with effect from 2014. The pay on the Promotional post be also fixed. c) The Pay of the Petitioner on the post of TGT and also on the post of Lecturer may be fixed taking into account the initial start of Rs 14430 only as granted on the post of TGT as per Regularization order and Annexure P-4. (d) In the alterative if the Hon'ble court comes to the conclusion that the case of the Petitioner is not covered under the schedule Annexure P-4 then clause 5 (ii) of HP Revised Pay rules 2012 annexed as Annexure P-3 may be set and quashed being aside unconstitutional..” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that case of the petitioner and reliefs prayed for, have now been adjudicated upon in Neena Puri & Others Vs. State of H.P. and Others2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would be content if the case of the petitioner is considered by the respondents in light of the aforesaid judgment. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to this prayer. 4. Having regard to above submissions, but without 2 CWPOA No.8020 of 2019, decided alongwith connected matters on 24.06.2025. - 3 - examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, in light of aforesaid decision, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The decision so arrived at, shall be communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge July 3, 2025 R.Atal