2025:HHC:4537 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2935 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sarita Kumari ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Proxy counsel for Mr. Devender K.Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs: “(i) Writ in nature of the mandamus may be issued directing the respondent department to pay the petitioner revised pay scale of Rs. 5480-8925/- from the date of appointment with further revision of pay scale from time to time and pay fixation be made accordingly in the interest of justice and fair play. (ii) That the respondents may also be directed to pay the arrear of consequential benefits with interest from the date of accrual till date of realization.” 3. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in light of judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 3341 of 2019 titled as Madan Lal Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr., wherein issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. 4. Having regard to the averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported with an affidavit as well as relief prayed for vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by this Court in Madan Lal Sharma (supra) and as such, there appears to be no justification to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Advocate Advocate General, fairly states that representation (Annexure P-9) filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided in accordance with the law in a time bound manner. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that petitioner herein is seeking pay scale of Rs. 5480-8925 w.e.f the initial date of joining along with consequential benefits in terms of judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 3341 of 2019 titled as Madan Lal Sharma Vs. 2 State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Since issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands decided by Principal Division Bench of this Court in Madan Lal Sharma (supra), this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-9) . 6. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-9) in light of Madan Lal Sharma (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceeding in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. March 03, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3