2025:HHC:9254 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2825 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04.04.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Kala Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Devender K.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) Writ in nature of the mandamus may be issued directing the respondent department to pay the petitioner revised pay scale of rupee 5480-8925 from the date of appointment with further revision of pay scale from time to time and pay fixation be made accordingly in the interest of justice and fair play. (ii) That the respondents may also be directed to Pay the arrear of consequential benefits with interest from the date of accrual till date of realization.” 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. 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 her grievance (Annexure P-9), 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. 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. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. April 04, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2