IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12623 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Kuldeep Verma …….Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein is aggrieved of order dated 25.03.2025 (Annexure P-7), whereby request made by the petitioner with regard to release of financial benefit in accordance to the State Government Notification dated 06.09.2022, came to be rejected. 2. Though, case at hand is squarely covered by the judgment dated 29.11.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1638 of 2024, titled Mohit Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, but respondents, while wrongly 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 interpreting the aforesaid judgment, proceeded to reject the representation of the petitioner. In the aforesaid judgment, it has been held that even if Rule 7(A) of the Revised Pay Rules, 2022, is to be read independently of the Revised Pay Rules, 2022, which seems to be the misplaced contention of the State, then also the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Rule 9(A). As in such situation, it has to be held that Rule 7(A) does not place any embargo upon flow of benefit under it to the contractual employees, more so upon their completing two years of regular service. The word used in Rule 7(A) pertaining to its applicability are “employees who are appointed before 03.01.2022” without making any distinction between the contractual or regular appointment. Petitioner herein is appointee of 2019 and as such, Revised Pay Rules 2022 become applicable upon regularization of contractual appointee and higher stage of pay provided under Rule 7(A) is to be released upon completion requisite number of years of regular service. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is allowed and order dated 25.03.2025 (Annexure P-7) is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner strictly in terms of Mohit Sharma’s case (supra) and grant similar benefit as was granted in Mohit Sharma’ case (supra) 3 expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. The application stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 04, 2025 (shankar)