IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3921 of 2025 Date of Decision: 20.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Dinesh Kumar 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. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “(a). Writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued directing the respondent department to pay the petitioner revised pay scale of rupee 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; (b). 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.” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Before the reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case his pending representation dated 25.10.2024 (Annexure P-8) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.3341 of 2019 titled Madan Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 4. 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 pending representation dated 25.10.2024 (Annexure P-8) of the petitioner 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 3 of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon, taking note of judgment rendered by this Court in Madan Lal’s 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. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 20,2025 (shankar)