IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11241 of 2025 Date of Decision: 14.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sakshi Chauhan …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Sakshi Thakur, Proxy counsel vice Mr. Kunal Mehta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “(a) Respondents be directed to release the higher stage of pay of Rs. 37,600/- to the petitioner w.e.f. her completing two years of regular service as JBT Teacher; (b) That the respondents may kindly be directed to release the pending arrears alongwith interest to the petitioner.” 2. Before the case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, learned proxy counsel representing the petitioner states that at this stage she has instruction to press her relief with regard to higher stage of pay, which issue otherwise has been decided by Co- 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024, titled Mohit Sharma and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. She states that petitioner shall be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the issue with regard to higher stage of pay in light of Mohit Sharma’s case(supra), which has been otherwise implemented in other cases. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum with regard to passing of judgment in Mohit Sharma’s case (supra), wherein issue with regard to higher stage of pay stands decided, states that in case representation is filed by the petitioner to consider his case in light of afore judgment, same shall be disposed of expeditiously. 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, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority within a period of one week, seeking therein relief of higher stage of pay in terms of judgment passed in Mohit Sharma’s case (supra), which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority within period of two weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate order and in case petitioner is found entitled to the 3 relief as has been granted in Mohit Sharma’s case (supra), she shall be granted similar benefits within a period of four weeks. Since while passing afore directions, this Court has not touched the other issues raised by the petitioner in the petition, petitioner, would be at liberty to raise the same in other petition, if proposed to be filed subsequently. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 14, 2025 (shankar)