( 2025:HHC:29005 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.13818 of 2025 Decided on: 27th August, 2025 Rakesh Kumar and others .......Petitioners versus State of H.P. and another ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G with Mr.L.N. Sharma, Addl. A.G. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The instant petition has been filed for following substantive relief:- 1. That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant to the petitioners the benefit of higher stage of pay of Rs. 41,600/- from the date the petitioners have completed two years of their respective regular service in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 4830/2023 titled Inder Singh Thakur & Ors versus State of H.P & others and further the respondents be directed that the pay of the petitioners be re-fixed from the date 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2025:HHC:29005 ) 2 the petitioners have completed two years of their respective regular service and the respondents be directed to release to the petitioners all the consequential benefits along with arrears at the rate of 9% per annum. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the issue arising in the instant petition has already been settled by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 07.04.2025 passed in CWP No.4830 of 2023 titled as Inder Singh Thakur and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others along-with connected matter. He submits that the petitioners have already made a representation to the competent authority and they will be satisfied, at this stage, in case the competent authority i.e. respondent No.2 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner in a time bound manner, in terms of judgment in Inder Singh (supra). 4. The prayer being innocuous is allowed. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner Annexure P-2 (Colly.) within a period of eight weeks from today by passing a detailed and reasoned order, strictly in terms of judgment passed by a Co- ordinate Bench in CWP No.4830 of 2023 titled as Inder Singh ( 2025:HHC:29005 ) 3 Thakur and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others along-with connected matter. Needless to say, in case the petitioners are found similarly situated to the petitioners in CWP No.4830 of 2023, they shall be given all the benefits as have been granted to the petitioners in CWP No.4830 of 2023 within a further period of four weeks. 5. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any. August 27, 2025 ( Satyen Vaidya ) (naveen) Judge