IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3175 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Biri Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: 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) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of mandamus, order or direction directing the Respondents to regularize the services of the Petitioner w.e.f. the date when the Petitioner completed their two years’ service on contractual basis i.e. from the date the Regularization Policy was liberalized, along with all consequential benefits, including the benefit of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022 and the petitioner be accorded the benefit of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised pay) Rules, 2022 after taking into account the services rendered by them on contract basis as having been appointed prior to 03.01.2022, as has been approved by the Cabinet on 14.10.2022. (ii) That the respondent may kindly be directed to grant Higher Stage of Pay in the Concerned Level of Pay Matrix i.e. Rs. 31,200/- and fix their pay from due date i.e. after completion 2 two years of regular service with all consequential benefits including the arrears along with interest @9%. iii) That the due and admissible arrear be paid to the petitioner along with interest and other consequential benefits.” 2. 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 dated 19.11.2024 rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1638 of 2024 titled as Mohit Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., wherein issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. 3. 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 Mohit 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 General, fairly states that representation (Annexure P-7) filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided in accordance with the law in a time bound manner. 3 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that petitioner herein is seeking higher stage of pay i.e. Rs. 31,200/-, on completion of two years of regular service as Clerk in terms of afore judgment. Since issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands decided by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mohit Sharma (supra), this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-7). 5. 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-7) in light of Mohit 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 7, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Manjit Judge