2025:HHC:25208 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 12377/2025 Decided on: 30.7.2025 Ravinder Kumar & ors. …..Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajender Gulati, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B. C. Verma, Addl. A.Gs. with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Dy. A.G. for the respondents-State. Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Mr. Janak Raj, CGC, for respondent No.6. ____________________________________________________________ Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral) By instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: “a. that the petitioners have been discharging regular and core duties of the department for 8 years, denial of parity in pay is unconstitutional. b. that arbitrary transfer without financial viability and with no promotion or salary revision amounts to forced exploitation. c. that the action of the respondents is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 d. that similarly situated employees in other departments like Welfare Societies are being paid Rs.25,000/- for the same work. e. that the action is unjust, unreasonable and against the principles of natural justice. f. declare that the act of arbitrary relocation without salary enhancement violates Articles 14, 16 and 21. g. pass any other or further orders as deemed just and proper in the interest of justice.” 2 Before the case could be heard and decided on merits, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-5) of the petitioners, in a time bound manner. 3 Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. 4 Consequently, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of 10 days from today. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, 3 while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass appropriate orders after taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners are receiving meager salary of Rs.11,000/- and in the event of transfer from Shimla to Sundernagar, it would be difficult for them to sustain themselves. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma) 30.7.2025 Judge (pankaj)