IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14061 of 2024 Date of Decision: 29.07.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Chanchal Kumari and Others …….Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and Another ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Despite sufficient opportunities, no reply to the petition has been filed, rather instructions dated 28.02.2025, issued under the signatures of Director of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, have been placed on record, wherein it has been stated that petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022 dated 03.01.2022 and 06.09.2022. 2. Before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that his clients would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of judgments rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024, titled as Mohit Sharma and Another Vs. State of H.P. and Others, decided on 29.11.2024 and CWP No.3096 of 2025, titled as Amit 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Khan Vs. State of H.P. and Others, decided on 07.03.2025, along with connected matter, in a time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents-State is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. 3. Having perused the averments contained in the petition as well as relief prayed therein vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of judgments supra. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgments expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereupon and in case, petitioners are found to be similarly situate to the petitioners in the aforesaid judgments, they would be extended similar benefits. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 29, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)