IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3577 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Raj Pal ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs: “(i) To direct respondents to grant the petitioner regular pay Scale of Rs. 5,480-8,925 + allowances, as is legally prescribed to the post of Shastri teachers, instead of Rs. 5,000-8,100 +allowances, from the date of her initial appointment i.e. 09.05.2006, with all the consequential benefits and the arrears accrued there under with interest @9% per annum till realisation of the amount in the interest of justice and fair play. (ii) To decide the representation in a time bound manner.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case his case is considered and decided in the light of judgment passed by Coordinate Bench this Court in CWP No. 3341 of 2019 titled Madan Lal Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 3. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already filed representation for redressal of his grievance (Annexure P-4), 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 case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by this Court in Madan Lal Sharma (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. May 01, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2