IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8385 of 2024 Date of Decision: 16.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Rajesh Rana & others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals. ___________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. By way of present petition, petitioners have prayed for following main 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-5 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 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 emoluments for contract period of the petitioners @ minimum of pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to regular employees holding the same post of TGT w.e.f. 01-01-2016 till their regularization of service along with 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 petitioners for contact period service in the department. “ 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that case of the petitioners, issue raised by petitioners and the reliefs claimed herein have already been adjudicated by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 8148 of 2022, titled as Yashwant Kumar and others versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 21.03.2024. Learned counsel further submits that petitioners would be satisfied in case the respondents/competent authority is directed to consider the case of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid decision. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to the aforesaid prayer. Learned Additional Advocate General, however, submits that the decision in Yashwant Kumar case has been assailed by the respondents in State of H.P. versus Chunni Lal in LPA No.205 of 2025 and the same is yet pending adjudication, therefore, the respondents be permitted to decide the case of the 3 petitioners within one month after the decision of LPA i.e. State of H.P versus Chunni Lal. 5. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioners to prefer their respective representations to respondent No.3/Competent Authority, within three weeks from today for redressal of their grievances raised in this writ petition with further direction to respondents No.3/Competent Authority to decide the aforesaid representations within one month from the date of decision of the State of H.P versus Chunni Lal. The decision so arrived at shall be also communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 16,2025 (shankar)