1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1272 of 2024 Date of decision: 25.06.2025 Pawan Kumar. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Even though the respondents have not filed reply, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(I). That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents thereby directing them to extend the benefit of minimum of the revised pay scale i.e., Rs.10300-34800/- w.e.f. 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2010 to the petitioner with all consequential benefits, in light of the ratio laid down by this Hon'ble Court in terms of Annexure P-2 i.e., Judgment dated 29.6.2022 passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWPOA NO. 7661 of 2019, titled as Pushap Raj Khimta and others Versus State of H.P. and others and in terms of Annexure P-3 i.e., judgment dated 21.4.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Execution Petition No.150 of 2022.” -2- 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner and the reliefs prayed for by him has already been considered & adjudicated upon in Pushap Raj Khimta & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. and Ors.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that representation dated 20.01.2024 (Annexure P-5) preferred by the petitioner, for claiming the above reliefs is pending consideration with the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content in case the respondents/ Competent Authority is directed to decide the aforesaid representations within a fixed-time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents is 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 with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Pushap Raj Khimta1 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. 1Civil Writ Petition (Original Application) No.7661 of 2019, decided on 29.06.2022. -3- The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 25th June, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)