2025:HHC:8332 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2659 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Hari Chand ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. J.P.Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: 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) The respondents may kindly be directed to Grant the pay scale of Rs.5480-8925/-to the petitioner, with effect from 09.01.2001, 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 consequential benefits upto date interest @ 9% per annum, in the interest of justice (ii) The respondents may be directed to re-fix the salary of the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.5480-8925 w.e.f 09.01.2001 and further revision time to time till date and to release all revised pay scale to the Petitioner with the basic pay grade, increased increment etc. along with all other consequential benefits.” 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 judgments passed in CWP No. 9791 of 2013 titled Madan Lal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. and in CWP(T) No. 5759 of 2008 titled Subhash Chand & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, 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-7), 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 aforesaid judgments, 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 of being heard to the petitioner and pass 2 speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. March 28, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3