IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.20002 of 2025 Decided on: 19th December, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rup Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Taking into consideration the pleadings, the order impugned herein and the order being passed hereinafter, reply of the writ petition is not required to be called for. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 4. Petitioner’s prayer for grant of higher pay scale under the Revised Pay Rules, 2022 was rejected by the respondents on 29.08.2025 (Annexure P-6). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner and reliefs prayed for by him have already been adjudicated upon and allowed in Mohit Sharma & Anr. Versus State of H.P. & Ors.2, however, the petitioner in his previous representation preferred to the respondents, could not bring to the notice of the respondents the decision in Mohit Sharma2, which resulted in rejection of his representation vide order dated 29.08.2025. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has preferred a fresh representation to respondent No.2 on 05.10.2025 (Annexure P-7), seeking redressal of his grievances in light of decision in Mohit Sharma2. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner would be content in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to consider and decide his aforesaid representation in accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 2 CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024 3 5. In view of the factual position, notwithstanding the order dated 29.08.2025 (Annexure P-6), this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 05.10.2025 (Annexure P-7) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Mohit Sharma2 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua December 19, 2025 Judge Mukesh