IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1668 of 2022 Decided on: 17th September, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Munshi Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner was engaged as Meter Reader/Water Works Clerk on daily wage basis in the respondent- Irrigation & Public Health Department in the year 1994. His services were regularized on 30.12.2006 in the pay scale of Rs.3120-5160/-. Petitioner seeks pay scale of Rs.10300- 34800/- on the basis of notification dated 27.09.2012 (Annexure P-2), whereunder, for category of Clerks, pay band of Rs.10300-34800/- has been made admissible. 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2. Learned vice counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the similar issue as raised in this petition was involved in Piyar Chand Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others2. That the petitioner in Piyar Chand2, whose services had been regularized as Irrigation Booking Clerk (Patwari), had been allowed the benefits made admissible to the category of Clerk at Column No.15 of notification dated 27.09.2012. Learned vice counsel further submits that The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Versus Piyar Chand3 instituted by the respondent-State against the above decision, has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 3. The respondents have filed reply on 24.09.2022, opposing the petition. The reply, inter alia, also pleads that the decision in Piyar Chand2 has not attained finality as appeal against this decision is pending for adjudication before the Hon’ble Court. 4. Learned vice counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the appeal filed by the respondents against the decision in Piyar Chand2 now stands dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the petitioner would be satisfied in case the respondents are directed to examine his case in 2 CWPOA No.7259 of 2019, decided on 13.08.2021 3 Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.19184/2022, decided on 08.08.2023 3 light of the aforesaid judgment within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 5. 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 case of the petitioner in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Piyar Chand2 by passing appropriate order, within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 17, 2025 Judge Mukesh