2025:HHC:3671 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.2705 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27.02.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Pawan Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajat Kumar and Mr. Piyush Dhanotia, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “i. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to grant the benefits of High Stage of Pay i.e. Rs. 37,600/- to the petitioner on completion of 2 years of regular service as JBT in accordance with notification dated 06.09.2022 (Annexure P-3) in the interest of justice. of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised pay) Rules, 2022, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has completed two years of regular service as on 18.01.2024. ii. That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 1638 of 2024 titled as Mohit Sharma & another Vs. State of H.P, and CWP 14628 of 2024 titled as Sanjeev Vardhan Vs. State of HP & others, in a time bound manner. 2025:HHC:3671 2 iii. That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant and release the actual monetary benefits i.e. arrears of salary, to the petitioner, from the date of initial appointment along with 12% interest, in a time bound manner.” 2. At the very outset, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment dated 29.11.2024, passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024, titled Mohit Sharma and Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, stated that since issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated therein, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case, prayer made in the instant petition, is ordered to be considered and decided by the respondents in light of Mohit Sharma (supra) in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, there appears to be no justification for this Court to call for reply from the respondents. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondent-State fairly states that representation (Annexure P-7), if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material adduced on record, which is duly supported by way of an affidavit, this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Petitioner is seeking higher 2025:HHC:3671 3 stage of pay i.e. Rs.37,600/- on completion of two years of regular service as JBT in accordance with notification dated 06.09.2022. Issue with regard to applicability of afore notification has been already adjudicated by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mohit Sharma (supra) and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of parties in case, petitioner’s case is also ordered to be considered in light of Mohit Sharma (supra). 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents to consider and decide representation (Annexure P-7) in light of Mohit Sharma (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, besides affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, shall also ensure that similar benefits are granted to the petitioner, as has been granted to Mohit Sharma (supra), in the event of his being found similarly situated to Mohit Sharma (supra) and pass speaking order thereupon. 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. February 27, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge