IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No. 13554 of 2025. Date of decision: 25 th August, 2025. Tara Devi ...Petitioner. Versus Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar University ....Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. B. Nandan Vasishta, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). Notice. Mr. Ramesh Sharma, learned counsel appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent. 2. By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for following substantive relief:- “i) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order ог direction thereby directing the Respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner to Rs. 20,200/- on regular appointment i.e. 4.1.2022 and Rs. 30,500/- after two years of regular service as per pay scale in terms of Rule 7 (A) of the amended revised pay Rules of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services, 2022 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? dated 6.9.2022 as mentioned in Schedule -II of said Rules (Annexure P-4). (ii) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent to release the amount of arrears alongwith interst @ of 9% per annum, in the interest of justice. (iii) That the respondent may kindly be directed to revise the salary of the petitioners in the light of law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 1638 of 2024 titled as Mohit Sharma & another Vs. State of H.P, in a time bound manner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the Judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of Court in CWP No. 1638 of 2024, titled as Mohit Sharma & Anr. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, on 29.11.2024 (Annexure P- 7). He further submits that petitioner shall be satisfied in case the respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation, (Annexure P-6) submitted by the petitioner in time bound manner in light of judgment ibid. 4. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of without making any comments on the merits of the case of the petitioner. It is directed that respondents shall consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-6), submitted by the …2… petitioner in light of judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 1638 of 2024, titled as Mohit Sharma & Anr. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, on 29.11.2024 (Annexure P-7), within eight weeks from today by passing a speaking order. In case, the petitioner is found similarly situated as petitioners in CWP No. 1638 of 2024, titled as Mohit Sharma & Anr. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, on 29.11.2024, he shall also be granted the same benefits as granted to petitioners in above referred case. 5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 25th August, 2025. (jai) …3…