2025:HHC:4152 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.991 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Dinesh Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “(i). That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of 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 them on his initial appointment with all consequential benefits and arrears accrued thereunder may very kindly be ordered to be released with interest @ 9% per annum in the interest of justice as has been granted by this Hon’ble Court in Madan Lal’s case. (ii). That the respondents may be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner filed on 19.09.2024(Annexure P-2) in the interest of justice and fair play.” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:4152 2. Before the reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case his pending representation dated 19.09.2024 (Annexure P-2) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.3341 of 2019 titled Madan Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 4. 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 pending representation dated 19.09.2024 (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity 3 2025:HHC:4152 of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by this Court in Madan Lal’s case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 01,2025 (shankar)