IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15310 of 2025 Date of decision : 22.09.2025. Ravinder Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral): Notice. Learned Assistant Advocate General accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- “i)That to issue appropriate Writ, orders or directions directing the respondents to extend benefits/grant of revised pay Band+Grade Pay for the contract period and for payment of the difference of emoluments between the minimum of Pay Band + Grade pay paid to them for period w.e.f. 01.01.2016 to 31.03.2018 in view of the judgment dated 21.03.2024 (Annexure P-1). ii) This Hon’be Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant arrears @ 12% p.a. in lieu of grant of revised pay band + grade pay for the contract period and for payment of the difference of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- ( 2025:HHC:33031 ) emoluments between the minimum of Pay Band + Grade pay paid to them and to which Petitioners are entitled w.e.f. 01.01.2016 to 31.03.2018.” 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioners 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. 4. In light of the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners have already submitted representation to the competent authority and copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. Since the representation of the petitioners have not been decided, they seek direction to the respondents to decide the same in a time bound manner. 5. Prayer being innocuous is not opposed. 6. 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 petitioners, Annexure P-3 in light of judgment passed in -3- ( 2025:HHC:33031 ) Yashwant Singh (supra) within eight weeks from today by passing a detailed and reasoned order. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 22nd September, 2025 Judge (Veena Sharma)