IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1318 of 2025 a/w CWP No.1320 of 2025 Decided on: 7th March, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.1318 of 2025 Thakur Dass …..Petitioner Versus H.P. National Law University .....Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.1320 of 2025 Rajesh Sharma …..Petitioner Versus H.P. National Law University .....Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Both these civil writ petitions, being inter- connected, are taken up together for decision. 2. Almost identical orders were passed in these matters on 25.02.2025. The order passed in CWP No.1318 of 2025 reads as under:- 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 “Notice. Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate vice Mr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, learned counsel, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was engaged as Driver in the respondent-National Law University on daily wage basis in the year 2017. His services were brought on contractual establishment in the year 2018 and regularized on 10.11.2022. Petitioner, upon his regularization, was given the pay scale at Level-6, Cell-1 at the rate of Rs.25600/- per month. After the grant of first increment to the petitioner on 01.11.2023, petitioner was given pay scale at Level- 6, Cell-2 at the rate of Rs.26400/- per month. Petitioner’s pay was further revised to Rs.27200/- on 01.11.2024. 3. Petitioner’s grievance is to the office order dated 19.11.2024 (Annexure P-2), whereby the respondent- University has reduced the basic pay of the petitioner to Rs.21300/- upon his appointment on 10.11.2022, Rs.21900/- on grant of first increment on 01.11.2023 and Rs.22600/- after grant of second increment on 01.11.2024 and has also ordered to make necessary recovery/ adjustment. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the impugned office order was issued without issuing any notice or giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In fact, perusal of the impugned office order does not reflect any basis for reducing the pay of the petitioner. 4. Learned vice counsel appearing for the respondent seeks time to file reply/obtain instructions. Let him do so before the next date of hearing. List on 07.03.2025.” 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-University submits that petitioners’ contention of illegal reduction in their salary by the respondent-University and the reliefs prayed for on that basis in these petitions are premature as vide office order dated 25.11.2024, respondent-University had itself kept in abeyance the operation of impugned office 3 order dated 19.11.2024. The matter is pending consideration of the respondent-University. No final decision in the matter has been taken as yet. Learned counsel further submits that as per subsequent office order dated 25.11.2024, the concerned employees including the petitioners, whose pay scales were revised, are to continue to receive their salary as per the previously released pay scales. 4. In view of office order dated 25.11.2024 placed on record by learned counsel for the respondent-University, grievance of the petitioners does not survive at this stage. The writ petitions to stand disposed of accordingly alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Petitioners are, however, at liberty to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law at an appropriate stage, in case their grievances are not redressed. Jyotsna Rewal Dua March 07, 2025 Judge Mukesh