IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1857 of 2025 Date of Decision: 19.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Rabinder Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Proxy Counsel vice Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Ms. Santosh Dogra, Deputy Advocate Generals. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “ i) That the petitioner may kindly be held entitled for the regular pay scale of TGT(Arts) is given to the regularly appointed TGTs and also for counting to services towards seniority from the date of initial appointment on contract basis on 23.8.2010 with all consequential benefits in terms of the judgment passed in CWPOA No.1453/2020 titled” Himachal Government Teachers Union & others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 13.5.2024; ii) That the respondents may also be directed to make re- fixation of the pay of the petitioner w.e.f. the date of his initial appointment made on contract basis on 23.8.2010 in regular pay scale after counting his approved Military Service of 17 years and after re-fixation of pay, release him arrears due to the petitioner.” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Before the reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned proxy counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case his pending representation dated 08.12.2024 (Annexure P-5 ) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.1453 of 2020, titled Himachal Government Teachers Union and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 4. 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 pending representation dated 08.12.2024 (Annexure P-5 ) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while 3 doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Himachal Government Teachers Union case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. 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. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 19,2025 (shankar)