1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4504 of 2024 Date of decision: 10.07.2025 Narender Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Even though the reply has not been filed by the respondents, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “A. That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent department to grant the higher pay scale to the petitioners w.e.f. 2017 with all consequential benefits in terms of notification dated 17.12.1991 (Annexure P-5), judgment dated 05.07.2010 passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP (T) No.5759 of 2008, titled as Subhash Chand & another versus State of H.P. & others, judgment dated 08.09.2012 passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 7836/2012, titled as Smt. Sandhya Devi v/s State of H.P. & others (Annexure P-6) and judgment dated 15.07.2013 passed by this Hon'ble -2- Court in CWP No. 4797/2013, titled as Smt. Kusum Chauhan v/s State of H.P. & others (Annexure P-7). (ii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent authorities to decide the representation of the petitioners dated 25.12.2023 (Annexure P-10) within a time bound manner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the decision rendered by Purshottam Dutt vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr1. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners would be content in case a direction is issued to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioners for redressal of their grievances raised in the writ petition in light of the aforesaid decision within a fixed time schedule. Learned Deputy Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/Competent Authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioners for redressal of their grievances raised in the writ petition, in accordance with law and taking into consideration the above 1 CWPOA No.4355 of 2019 decided on 29.07.2022. -3- decision in the cases of Purshottam Dutt1, 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 10th July, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)