2025:HHC:4267 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.1023 of 2025 Date of Decision: 03.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Krishan Dutt Sharma and Others ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, 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, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main reliefs: “(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued and the petitioners be held entitled for the benefit of their adhoc service towards bunching and stagnation scale with effect from due date and the pay fixation of petitioners be ordered to be reaffixed with all consequential benefits after granting benefits of bunching of increments in view of judgment passed in CWPOA 7531 of 2019 titled Madan Lal versus State of HP in the interest of justice and fair play. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the arrear accrued on account of granting benefits of bunching of increments with interest @ 12 % interest till the date of realization.” 2. Before reply, if any, could be called for on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioners while inviting attention of this Court to Annexure P-9 states that petitioners 2025:HHC:4267 2 have already filed representations to consider their case in light of judgment dated 30.12.2022, passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.7531 of 2019, titled Madan Lal and Others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Another, and as such, petitioners would be content and satisfied in case direction is issued to respondents to decide the pending representations (Annexure P-9) in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners as well as order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who fairly states that pending representations, if not decided already, shall be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. 4. Having perused averments contained in the petition 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 in the judgment passed in Madan Lal (supra) and as such, no prejudice, if any, shall be caused to either of the party, if direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representations (Annexure P-9) filed by the petitioners in terms of judgment passed in Madan Lal (supra). 2025:HHC:4267 3 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with the direction to respondents to decide the pending representations (Annexure P-9) of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks, in light of judgment passed in Madan Lal (supra). Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass appropriate order thereupon. 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. March 03, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge