Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 5552 (HP)

RAHUL AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/1138/2025 · 2025-02-25

Jyotsna Rewal Dua

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.1138 of 2025 Decided on: 25th February, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Rahul and Anr. ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitionesr: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ________________________________________________________________ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This petition has been filed for grant of following relief: - “i. 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 Stage of Pay in the Concerned Level of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - Pay Matrix i.e. Rs. 30500/- as per Notification dated 06.09.2022 and fix their pay from due date i.e. after completion two years of regular service with all consequential benefits including the arrears along with interest @ 9%. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue involved and the relief prayed for by the petitioners has already been adjudicated in Mohit Sharma and Anr. Vs. State of H.P. and others2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners would be content if the case of the petitioners is considered by the respondents in light of the aforesaid judgment within a time bound schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to this prayer. 4. Having regard to above submissions but without examining the merits of the matter, this petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid judgment and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The decision so arrived at, shall be communicated to the petitioners. 2 CWP No. 1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024. - 3 - Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge February 25, 2025 R.Atal