IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.630 of 2025 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 9th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.630 of 2025 Mamta Kumari …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.633 of 2025 Shobha Rani …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. CWP No.634 of 2025 Samarthya Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. CWP No.635 of 2025 Sukhvinder Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. CWP No.636 of 2025 Shubham Bhadwal …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 6. CWP No.637 of 2025 Shikha Thakur …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. CWP No.638 of 2025 Monika Kaundal …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. CWP No.639 of 2025 Shailly …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. CWP No.657 of 2025 Bhawna Kumari …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10. CWP No.659 of 2025 Sonia Sharma …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 3 For the Petitioners: Mr. Piyush Dhanotia and Mr. Rajat Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.630 of 2025 read as under:- “i. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to grant the benefits of High Stage of Pay i.e. Rs.37,600/- to the petitioner on completion of 2 years of regular service as JBT in accordance with notification dated 06.09.2022 (Annexure P-4) in the interest of justice of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised pay) Rules, 2022, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has completed two years of regular service as on 12.01.2024. ii. That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024 titled as Mohit Sharma & another Vs. State of H.P., and CWP 14628 of 2024 titled as Sanjeev Vardhan Vs. State of HP & others, in a time bound manner. iii. That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant and release the actual monetary benefits i.e. arrears of salary, to the petitioner, from the date of initial appointment along with 12% interest, in a time bound manner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners and the issues 4 raised by them in the writ petitions are squarely covered in terms of the recent decision rendered in Mohit Sharma & Anr. Versus State of H.P. & Ors.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners would be content in case a direction is issued to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide their respective cases for redressal of the grievances raised in the writ petitions in light of the aforesaid judgment within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the respective cases of the petitioners for redressal of their grievances raised in the writ petitions, in accordance with law and 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 petitioners. 2 CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024 5 The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 09, 2025 Judge Mukesh