IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2769 of 2025 Date of Decision: 02.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Rajeev Kumar and Another …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Digvijay Singh Thakur and Mr. Saurabh Ahluwalia, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying for substantive reliefs:- i. That the respondent maybe issued appropriate writ, order or direction to pay the Grade pay of Rs.4200/- instead of Rs.3600/- w.e.f, 3.1.2015 and 7.1.2015. ii. That the respondents may be further directed to pay arrears with interest @ 12% per annum. 3. During hearing of the case, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that cases of the petitioners and relief prayed for 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 by them are squarely covered in terms of decision dated 03.11.2010 rendered in CWP-T No.2114 of 2008 (Mukesh Manhas & others vs. State of H.P & another) as well as dated 14.06.2023 passed in CWPOA No.3921/2020 (Shiv Dev & ors vs. State of H.P & anr.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be content in case a direction is issued to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the cases of the petitioners for redressal of grievances raised by them in the instant petition in light of the aforesaid judgments within a time bound schedule. 4. The prayer is not opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General. 5. Having regard with the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.2/competent authority to decide the cases of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid judgments in accordance with law. This entire exercise shall be carried out within six weeks from today. Copy of the order be also communicated to the petitioners. All pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 02, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)