IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No. 13576 of 2025. Date of decision: 25 th August, 2025. Kishore Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Mamta Garg, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, Addl. A.G. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). Notice. Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, learned Addl. Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for following substantive relief:- “i) That respondent May kindly be directed to extend the benefit of Notification dated 6-9-2022 Annexure P-2 to the petitioners by releasing the benefit of revised pay for the contractual period. ii) That respondents may kindly be order to release the revised pay of 40100/- with other allowances to petitioner strictly as per ratio laid down by this Hon,ble court in CWP 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 1638/2024 titled as Mohit Sharma and another versus State Of H.P (Annexure P-3). iii) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents by directing to pay the revised emoluments for contract period of the petitioner @ minimum of pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to regular employees holding the same post of PET w.e.f. date of contract appointment of the petitioner till their regularization along with applicable rate of DA. The arrears with interests at market rate on delay payment, on account of revision @ minimum of pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to regular employees holding the same @post w.e.f. contract basis w.e.f. appointment date to till their regularization i.e. 18.01.2022.” 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- 4). He further submits that petitioner shall be satisfied in case the respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation, (Annexure P-3) 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 …2… petitioner. It is directed that respondents shall consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-4), submitted by the 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, 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…