1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16948 of 2025 Decided on: 31st October, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jagan Nath and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N.Sharma, 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:- “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 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 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 petitioners at revised rate of initial start of pay scale of the petitioners post i.e. @ ₹20600 + 3% annual hike on this, till the regularization of the petitioners. The pay arrears with interest at market rate on delay payment of arrears may also be paid to the petitioners.” 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 upon in Yashwant Kumar and others versus State of H.P. and others.2 Learned counsel 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. 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 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 petitioners within one 2 CWP No. 8148/2022, decided on 21.03.2024 alongwith connected matters. 3 LPA No. 205/2025 3 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 petitioners 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 petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua October 31, 2025 Judge yogesh