IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2246/2025 Decided on: 20.11.2025 Man Singh …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Yogesh Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J The writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs: - “(i) That the writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued to quash and set aside the notification dated 12-01-2022 i.e. Annexure P-6 as far as it provide the revised emoluments of contract employees 60% of minimum of pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to regular employees holding the same post. ii) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents by directing to pay the revised emoluments for contract period of the petitioner at the initial start of revised pay scale/matrix (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to regular employees holding the same post of DM for the contract period service of the petitioner along with 3% 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 annual hike. The arrears with interests at market rate on delay payment, on account of revision @ minimum of pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to regular employees holding the same post w.e.f. 01-01-2016, shall also be paid to the petitioner for contract service rendered in the department.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case of the petitioner, issue raised by petitioner and the reliefs claimed herein have already been adjudicated upon in Yashwant Kumar and others versus State of H.P. and others.2 Learned counsel further submits that petitioner would be satisfied in case the respondents/competent authority is directed to consider the case of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid decision. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to the aforesaid prayer. Learned Additional Advocate General, however, submits that the decision in Yashwant Kumar2 has been assailed by the respondents in State of H.P. versus Chunni Lal3 and the same is yet pending adjudication, therefore, the respondents be permitted to decide the case of the petitioner within one month after the decision of LPA i.e. State of H.P versus Chunni Lal3 4. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondents No.3/Competent Authority to decide the case of the petitioner within one month from the date of decision of the 2 CWP NO. 8148/2022 decided on 21.03.2024 a/w connected matters 3 LPA No. 205/2025 3 State of H.P versus Chunni Lal.3 The decision so arrived at shall be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 20th November, 2025(rohit)