Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 5544 (HP)

AKSHAY KAUNDAL v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/689/2025 · 2025-01-09

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:HHC:2223 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 689 of 2025 Decided on: 09.01.2025 Shri Akshay Kaundal … Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioners : M/s Onkar Jairath and Piyush Mehta, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Rahul Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “1. That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to extend the benefits of the Notifications dated 03.01.2022 & 06.09.2022 and Grant Higher State of Pay in the Concerned Level of pay Matrix i.e. 30500/- as per Notification dated 06.09.2022 and fix his pay from due date i.e. after completion of two years of regular service with all consequential benefits including the arrears alongwith interest @ 9%.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:2223 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024, titled as Mohit Sharma & another Vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 29.11.2024. He further submits that representation has also been made by the petitioner in this regard and it would be in the interest of justice, in case, this petition is disposed of with the direction that let the representation of the petitioner be decided by the Competent Authority, in terms of the averments made in the representation as well as the judgment being relied upon by the petitioner. 4. Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, this petition is disposed of with the direction that let the representation made by the petitioner be decided by the Competent Authority, in terms of the averments made therein, taking into consideration the judgment being relied upon by the petitioner therein, by passing a speaking order, within a period of 12 weeks from today. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge January 09, 2025 (narender)