2025:HHC:7139 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1967 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Gagan Bihari ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. S.P.Chatterji, 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) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to grant the pay scale of Rs. 5480-8925, to the petitioner as was/ is prescribed to the post of Shastri Teacher instead of pay scale of Rs.5000-8100, as was granted to him on his appointment on 09.01.2001, with all consequential benefits and arrears accrued there under may kindly be ordered to be released with interest @9% per annum in the interest of justice.” 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 directions are issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in light of judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 3341 of 2019 titled as Madan Lal Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr., wherein issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. 3. Having regard to the averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported with an affidavit 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 by this Court in Madan Lal Sharma (supra) and as such, there appears to be no justification to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided in accordance with the law in a time bound manner. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that petitioner herein is seeking pay scale of Rs. 5480-8925 w.e.f the initial date of joining along with consequential benefits in terms of judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 3341 of 2019 titled as Madan Lal Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Since issue raised in the instant 2 proceedings already stands decided by this Court in Madan Lal Sharma (supra), this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-2) . 5. 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 representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-2) in light of Madan Lal Sharma (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks. 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 speaking order thereafter. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceeding in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. March 21, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3