IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos. 7786 & 8490 of 2024 Decided on: 15.12.2025 1. CWP No. 7786/2024 Kishori Lal and others …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & others .…Respondents. 2. CWP No. 8490/2024 Balbir Sharma and others …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & others .…Respondents. ……………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta and Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocates General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J Even though replies have not been filed by the respondents, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both these matters are heard at this stage. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost common substantive reliefs. Relief clause herein is extracted from CWP No. 7786/2024: - “(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 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 service rendered in the department on contract basis till regularization of their service.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that cases 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 further submits that petitioners would be satisfied in case the respondents/competent authority is directed to consider the cases 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 2CWP No.8148/2022 decided on 21.03.2024 a/w connected matters. 3 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, these writ petitions are 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 these writ petitions with further directions 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.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 Judge 15th December, 2025(yogesh) 3LPA No.205/2025.