IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13452 of 2024 Decided on: 12th November, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sunidhi Sharma 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: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the 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 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 at the revised rate of initial start of pay scale/matrix (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to regular employees holding the same post of MLT Grade- 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 II for the contract period service of the petitioners 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 contract service rendered in the department.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue raised in this writ petition and the reliefs claimed by them have already been adjudicated upon in Yashwant Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Ors.2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners would be satisfied in case they are permitted to make a representation to respondent No.3/competent authority for grant of above reliefs, whereafter, the said authority be directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with the aforesaid judgment within a time bound schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to the aforesaid prayer. Learned Additional Advocate General, however, submits that the decision in Yashwant Kumar2 has been assailed by the respondents in State of H.P. and others Versus Chuni Lal3 and the same is yet pending adjudication, therefore, the respondents be permitted to decide the case of the petitioners within one month after the decision of Chuni Lal3. 2 CWP No.8148 of 2022, decided alongwith connected matters on 21.03.2024 3 LPA No.205 of 2025 3 4. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioners to prefer a representation to respondent No.3/competent authority within a period of two weeks from today, whereafter, the same shall be considered and decided by the said authority in accordance with law within one month from the date of decision of Chuni Lal3. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua November 12, 2025 Judge Mukesh