Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 35434 (HP)

ANIL CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/3659/2024 · 2025-11-10

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3659 of 2024 Date of Decision: 10.11.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sh. Anil Chaudhary …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Anuja Mehta, proxy counsel, for Dr. Lalit Kumar Sehgal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Though this Court had granted time to respondents to file reply, but learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record instructions dated November, 2025, issued under the signatures of Director School Education, Himachal Pradesh, enclosing therewith copy of office order dated 07.11.2025, to state that relief, as prayed for, stands granted to the petitioner. 2. Having perused aforesaid communication as well as copy of office order dated 07.11.2025, which are taken on record, this Court finds that grievance of the petitioner, as raised in the present petition, stands redressed. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Petitioner herein, who was appointed as TGT (Arts) at Government Senior Secondary School, Gangath, District Kangra, on contract basis on 07.10.2018 has been considered regularised in the minimum of pre-revised pay of ₹10300+3600 Grade Pay w.e.f. 26.10.2020 i.e. from the date when his counterparts were regularised, instead of 05.05.2021, after taking into consideration his three years service as on 30.09.2020. 4. In view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and accordingly the same is disposed of, as having been rendered infructuous. Needless to say, consequential benefits, if any, flowing from the aforesaid order, if not already released, shall be released expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two months. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge November 10, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)