IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. No.10055 of 2025 Date of Decision:20.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Anita Devi …....Petitioner Versus State of H.P & Others ..… Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Kaushal, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Susheel Gautam, Advocate, for respondent No.3 Mr. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of the present petition, petitioner has prayed for following relief:- (i).The respondents may kindly be directed to grant equal pay to the applicants who are working as VGO/GO in the projects without discrimination that the applicants have joined the project from KFW and others have joined the project from the Swan river project etc and also release all consequential benefits from the date of their appointments are made. (II).That respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner as VGO/GO as per the policy and grant consequential benefits thereof. 2. By way of filing reply to the petition, relief as prayed for, has been seriously opposed by the respondents, however during 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the petitioner, made available copy of judgment dated 19.11.2025, passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. No. 9560 of 2025, titled as Munisha Dhiman v. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors. (alongwith connected matters), to state that issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in aforesaid judgment and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of afore judgment passed by coordinate Bench of this Court. 3. Having carefully perused averments contained in the petition, especially relief clause vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issued involved in the case at hand with regard to equal pay for equal work has been adjudicated by the Coordinate Bench in the afore judgment and as such, no prejudice, if any, shall be caused to either of the parties in case present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment. 4. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General as well as Mr. Susheel Guatam, Advocate, appearing for the respective respondents are not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioner. 3 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of Munisha Dhiman (supra), expeditiously preferably within six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority while doing the needful shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order taking note of the observations made herein above as well as law laid down by the Coordinate Bench in the aforesaid case. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge December 20, 2025 (meera) 4 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge November____,2025 (shankar)