IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15290 of 2025 Date of decision : 22.09.2025. Bhavna Kumari. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Ajay Kumar Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral): Notice. Learned Deputy Advocate General accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- “That writ in the natrure of manamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction be issued to respondents to grant difference of the minumum of pay band+grade pay as was actually paid to them viz a viz- the minimum of pay band + grade pay after revision for the period spent on contract service by the petitioner in the light of judgment dted 21.3.2024 passed in CWP No.8148 of 2022 titled as Yashwant Kumar vs. State of H.P.& ors. (Annexure P-2) to protect right to quality under Article 14,16 and 21 of the Constituion of India. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- ( 2025:HHC:33002 ) 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 342 of 2021, titled as Yashwant Singh & others vs. State of H.P. & others, on 31.8.2022. He further submits that the aforesaid judgment in Yashwant Singh’s case has been implemented. 3. In light of the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already submitted representation to the competent authority and copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P-4. Since the representation of the petitioner has not been decided, he seeks direction to respondents to decide the same within a time bound manner. 4. Prayer being innocuous is not opposed. 5. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of without touching the merits of the case with direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner Annexure P-4 within eight weeks from today. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 22nd September, 2025 Judge (veena) -3- ( 2025:HHC:33002 )