IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3133 of 2024 Date of Decision: 23.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Rajinder Pall Sharma …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Rajput and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “a. That respondents may kindly be directed to release the higher scale of Rs 1800-3200 immediately on completion of 12 years of service (i.e. 26-2-1986) as surveyors along with consequential benefits like revised gratuity and revised leave encashment etc. b. That respondents may further be directed to pay the entire arrears to petitioners without any restriction, from the date when he has completed 12 years of service as surveyor and granted higher scale on analogy of Hans Raj case and thereafter granted to Sh Dev Raj and others on basis of OA(D) 151/2018. c. That in alternate respondents may kindly be directed to extend the benefit of higher pay scale of Rs 1800-3200 on the analogy of the Judgment passed in OA (D) 1035 of 1994 titled as Hans Raj and others versus State of H.P. and in case of Rishi Dev Singh versus State of H.P. (CWPOA 1415/2020).” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Before reply, if any, could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case he is permitted to file representation for redressal of his grievance, with further direction to the respondents to consider and decide the same in light of judgment rendered by erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal in OA (D) No.1035 of 1994, titled as Hans Raj and Others Vs. State of H.P. and Others, decided on 20.06.2000, decided on 29.12.2023, in a time bound manner. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided in accordance with the aforesaid judgment. 4. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the competent authority within a period of two weeks for redressal of his grievance, which in-turn, shall be decided by the competent authority, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks in light of aforesaid judgment. Needless to say, authority concerned, while 3 doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal in Hans Raj case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 23, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)