IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10498 of 2026 Decided on: 03.07.2026 Rajan Sharma …….Petitioner Versus State of HP and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?20 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioners : Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Addl AG. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. By of this petition, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “i.) That the writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued to quash and set aside Annexure P-6 i.e. Office order dated 25-11-2025. ii.) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondent department by directing them to grant the petitioners the benefits of Higher Pay Stage by fixing the pay of the petitioners @ Rs 40100/- per month immediately after completion of two years of regular along with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay by getting 20 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? fixation @ Rs 40100/- per month immediately after completion of two years of regular along with interest on delayed payment of higher pay stage benefit.” 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Authority (Annexure P-6), in terms whereof, the petitioner has not been given the benefit of judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 4830 of 2023, titled as Inder Singh vs. State of H.P. and others on the ground that the Letters Patent Appeal in the matter is still pending. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that whereas the petitioner has been denied the benefit of the judgment in issue in light of the fact Letters Patent Appeal in the matter is pending before Hon’ble Division Bench, in other similar cases, the State has implemented the judgment. He also informed that Court that there is no stay granted in favour of the State in the Letters Patent Appeal. 5. This Court is of the considered view that as implementation of judgment passed in Inder Singh Thakur’s case will entail monetary raminifications and as said matter is pending adjudication before Hon’ble Division Bench, it would be in the interest of justice, in case, order passed by the Authority is modified by observing that a fresh call be taken on the representation of the petitioner within four weeks as from the date of decision of the Letters Patent Appeal by Hon’ble Division Bench. This observation has been made by this Court for the reason that in case monetary benefits are released in favour of the petitioner at this stage and ultimately in the appeal, State succeeds, then it may be difficult for the State to recover the monetary benefits released to the petitioner. On the other hand, if State is unsuccessful in the appeal, then ensuring that the petitioner gets all benefits in terms of the judgment may not be all that big a task. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed and order dated 20.11.2025 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Authority concerned is quashed and set aside and it is directed that the representation of the petitioner be decided afresh within four weeks as from the date of decision of the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the State in Inder Singh Thakur’s case by the Hon’ble Division Bench. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 03, 2026 (narender)