2025:HHC:2111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 14205 of 2024 Decided on: 09.01.2025 Surender Kumar and another … Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioners : Mr. Hemant Thakur and Deepanshu Bindal, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “1.That the impugned office orders dated 02.03.2019 (Annexure P-4), whereby the petitioner pay has been re-fixed and recovery ordered, may kindly be quashed and set aside. 2. That the respondents may kindly be directed to restore the petitioners’ pay at Rs. 10300-34800 with a Grade Pay of Rs. 32000 effective from the year 2014, with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay. 3. That the respondents may kindly be restrained from effecting any recovery from the petitioners in terms of the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:2111 impugned orders.” 2. When this case was listed on 30.11.2024, the following order was passed by the Court:- “Notice. Mr. Rahul Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that case of the petitioners is squarely covered by judgment dated 19.12.2022 passed by this Court in CWPOA No.3883 of 2020, titled as Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. & others. Let the respondents have instructions as to whether the aforesaid judgment has been implemented. List on 30.12.2024 before the appropriate Bench.” 3. Thereafter, on 30.12.2024, the following order was passed by the Court:- “On the request of learned Deputy Advocate General, list on 09.01.2025, to enable him to have instruction, in terms of the previous order. In the interregnum, no recovery shall be effected from the petitioner, in terms of Annexure P-4, dated 02.05.2019.” 4. Today, learned Deputy Advocate General, on the strength of instructions received from the Director of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, informs the Court that though the 3 2025:HHC:2111 letters patent appeal filed by the State in CWPOA No. 3883 of 2020, titled as Rakesh Kumar vs. State of HP and others, i.e. the case which stands referred to by this Court in its order, has been dismissed, however, the State is intending to assail the judgment passed in letters patent appeal. 5. As there is no denial on the part of the State that the case of the petitioner indeed is covered by the judgment passed by this Court in CWPOA No. 3883 of 2020, titled as Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others, this writ petition is disposed of by quashing the impugned order Annexure P-4 with further direction that the judgment passed in by this Court in Rakesh Kumar’s case (supra) shall mutatis mutandi apply in this case also and all directions passed therein shall also be construed to have been passed in this case, subject to the legal rights of the respondents. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge January 09, 2025 (narender)