IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 14995 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.09.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Chander Bhan ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs: “(i) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to grant the pay scale of Rs. 5480-8925 as is prescribed to the post of Shastri teacher instead of pay scale of Rs. 5000-8100 as was granted to him from his initial appointment i.e., 23.05.2002 with all consequential benefits including time to time revised pay scale and the arrears accrued thereunder may very kindly be ordered to be released with interest @ 9% per annum in the interest of justice.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in light of judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 3341 of 2019 titled as Madan Lal Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr., wherein issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. 3. Having regard to the averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported with an affidavit as well as relief prayed for vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by this Court in Madan Lal Sharma (supra) and as such, there appears to be no justification to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Advocate Advocate General, fairly states that representation (Annexure P-12) filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided in accordance with the law in a time bound manner. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that petitioner herein is seeking pay scale of Rs. 5480-8925 w.e.f the initial date of joining along with consequential benefits in terms of judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 3341 of 2019 titled as Madan Lal Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Since issue raised in the instant 2 proceedings already stands decided by this Court in Madan Lal Sharma (supra), this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-12) . 5. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-12) in light of Madan Lal Sharma (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceeding in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. September 19, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Shamsh Tabrez) Judge 3