IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4907 of 2025 Date of Decision: 4.4.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Vandna Jhangta ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Gambhir Singh Chauhan, Advocate. s For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main relief:- “(i) The respondents may very kindly be directed to grant the pay scale of Rs. 5480-8925 with effect from the initial date of joining instead of Rs.5000-8100 to the petitioner, alongwith all consequential benefits and arrears accrued thereunder may kindly be ordered to be paid/released with interest @ 9% p.a., in favour of the petitioner, in the interest of justice also in light of judgment dated 4.09.2021 in CWP No. 3341 of 2019 titled: Madan Lal Sharma Versus State of H.P. & Anr. (ii) The respondents may very kindly be directed to release revised pay scale to the petitioner with the basic pay grade along with all other consequential benefits.” - 2 - 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by this Court in CWP No. 3341 of 2019, case titled as “Madan Lal Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr, decided on 4.9.2021 and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide her representation (Annexure P-5) in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity 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, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representations (Annexure P-5) filed by the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 4. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit 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 (supra), as such, there appears to be no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation - 3 - of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner in light of judgment, as detailed hereinabove, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioners in the aforesaid judgment, she would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of the instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon. All pending applications stand disposed of. April 4, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge