1 ( 2025:HHC:35486 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2744 of 2025 Decided on: 27th October, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ajay Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Even though the respondents have not filed reply, however, with the consent of the parties, matter is heard and disposed of. 2. This writ petition has been filed for 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 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 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 ( 2025:HHC:35486 ) 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 PET for the contract period service of the petitioner alongwith 3 % 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.” 3. 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 submits that petitioner would be satisfied in case the respondents/competent authority is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid decision. Learned Deputy Advocate General has no objection to the aforesaid prayer. Learned Deputy Advocate General however submits that decision in Yashwant Kumar2 has been assailed by the respondents in State of H.P. versus Chunni Lal,3 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 Lal.3 2 CWP No. 8148/2022, decided on 21.03.2024 alongwith connected matters. 3 LPA No. 205/2025 3 ( 2025:HHC:35486 ) 4. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to prefer representation to respondent No.2/Competent Authority within two weeks from today for redressal of his grievances raised in this writ petition with further direction to respondents No. 2 & 3/Competent Authority to decide the aforesaid representation within one month from the date of decision of the 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 October 27, 2025 Judge yogesh