IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No. 13536 of 2025. Date of decision: 25 th August, 2025. Babita Kumari & Anr. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: 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 petitioners have 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 petitioner by releasing the benefit of revised pay for the contractual period. ii) That respondents may kindly be order to release the revised pay of 37600/- with other allowances to petitioner strictly as per ratio laid down by this Hon,ble court in CWP 1638/2024 titled as Mohit 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 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 TGT 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. 28.01.2022.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case of the petitioners 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-3. He further submits that petitioners shall be satisfied in case the respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation, (Annexure P-4) submitted by the petitioners in time bound manner in light of judgment ibid. …2… 4. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of without making any comments on the merits of the case of the petitioners. It is directed that respondents shall consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-4), submitted by the petitioners 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 petitioners are 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, they 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…