1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17025 of 2025 Decided on: 3rd November, 2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Neeraj 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. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents. Even though the respondents have not filed reply, however, with the consent of the parties, matter is heard at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 “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 them to fix and pay the contract pay arrears to the petitioner at revised rate of initial start of pay scale of the petitioner’s post i.e. @ 20200 + 3% annual hike ₹ on this, w.e.f. 01-01-2016 till the regularization of the petitioner. The pay arrears with interest at market rate on delay payment of arrears may also be paid to the petitioner.” 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 Additional Advocate General has no objection to the aforesaid prayer. Learned Additional Advocate General however submits that decision in Yashwant Kumar2 has been assailed by the respondents in 2 CWP No. 8148/2022, decided on 21.03.2024 alongwith connected matters. 3 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 4. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.3/Competent Authority to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 14.09.2025 (Annexure P-11) 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 3rd November, 2025 Judge (Rajeev) 3 LPA No. 205/2025