IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4508 of 2025 Decided on: 27th March, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Surender Singh 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. Desh Raj Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Surender Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and respondents No.2 & 3, respectively. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 “a. Appropriate writ or direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners with effect from 01.10.2021 in terms of the policy decision dated 28.12.2021 (Annexure P-3). b. Appropriate writ or direction to the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioners at higher pay stage at Rupees 30,500/- from the date of completion of 2 years regular service in terms of notification dated 06.09.2022 with the further direction to release the arrears of salary with all consequential benefits along with interest @ 9% per annum on delayed payment.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners and the issue raised by them in the writ petition are squarely covered in terms of the recent decision rendered in Mohit Sharma & Anr. Versus State of H.P. & Ors.2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners would be content in case they are permitted to prefer a comprehensive representation(s) to the respondents/competent authority within a period of two weeks and thereafter the competent authority be directed to decide the said representation(s) within a time bound schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General as also learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 are not averse to this prayer. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioners to file a 2 CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024 3 comprehensive representation(s) to the respondents/ competent authority within a period of two weeks from today. In case such a representation(s) is received by the respondents/competent authority within the aforesaid period, the same shall be considered and decided 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 petitioners. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua March 27, 2025 Judge Mukesh