IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13583 of 2025 Date of Decision: 05.09.2025 __________________________________________________________ Murari Lal Sharma and Others …….Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Others ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main reliefs: “i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents for quashing the impugned office order dt. 17.06.2025 Annexure P-7, passed by the respondent no.-2. ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioners directing the Respondents to grant to the petitioners the benefit of higher pay matrix as per the Revised pay Rules 2022 after completion of 2 years of service post regularization/promotion after 01.10.2012 and 03.01.2022, alongwith arrears and interest, in the interest of justice.” 2. Petitioners had earlier approached this Court by way of CWP No.8887 of 2024, titled as Sachin Kumar and Others Vs. State of H.P. and Others, decided on 29.08.2024, whereby direction was issued 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioners within a period of twelve weeks, however, respondents after having considered the case of the petitioners, have rejected the same vide order dated 17.06.2025 (Annexure P-7). 3. Learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that issue involved in the case at hand is squarely covered by the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024, titled as Mohit Sharma and Another Vs. State of H.P. and Others, decided on 29.11.2024 and as such, petitioners would be content and satisfied in case respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners afresh in light of aforesaid judgment expeditiously. 4. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of, with the direction to respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of Mohit Sharma (supra), irrespective of order dated 17.06.2025 (Annexure P-7), expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court -3- in Mohit Sharma (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. The present petition is disposed in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 05, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)