IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.2795 of 2025 Date of Decision: 02.04.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Bhed Ram ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Aruna Sharma and Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “1) The respondents may kindly be directed to Grant the pay scale of Rs.5480-8925/- to the petitioner, with effect from 8-7-1998, from the date of initial appointment of petitioner, as has been allowed to other counter-parts with further pay revision from time-to-time alongwith arrears and all other consequential benefits with upto date interest @ 9% per annum, in the interest of justice. 2) The respondents may be directed to revised re-fixe the pension of the petitioner after reaffixin/revising the salary of the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.5480-8925 w.e.f. 8-7-1998 and further revision time to time till date and to release all revised pay scale and revised pension to the Petitioner with the basic pay grade, increased increment etc. along with all other consequential benefits.” 2 2. Before reply, if any, could be called for on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner while inviting attention of this Court to Annexure P-7 states that petitioner has already filed representation to consider his case in light of judgment dated 04.09.2021, passed by this Court in CWP No.3341 of 2019, titled Madan Lal Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Another, and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case direction is issued to respondents to decide the pending representation (Annexure P-7) in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner 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 while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation, 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 Sharma (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 3 decide the pending representation (Annexure P-7) filed by the petitioner in terms of judgment passed in Madan Lal Sharma (supra). 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with the direction to respondents to decide the pending representation (Annexure P-7) of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six weeks, in light of judgment passed in Madan Lal Sharma (supra). Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order thereupon. 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. April 02, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge