IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15049 of 2026 Decided on: 2nd September, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ram Chand Vasisth …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Aditya Singh Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Ankit Kaloti, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. Mr. Shubham Singh Guleria, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Ankit Kaloti and Mr. Shubham Singh Guleria, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2. Petitioner has several issues concerning fixation of his pay, for which he has prayed for the reliefs in this writ petition. 3. It is seen from the record that though the petitioner has preferred some representations to the respondents for the redressal of his grievances, however, the aforesaid representations do not seek redressal of all the reliefs, which the petitioner has primarily claimed for the first time in this writ petition. 4. At this stage, learned vice counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case he is permitted to make a representation to respondent No.2/competent authority for the redressal of his grievances, whereafter, the said authority is directed to decide the same in accordance with law within a time bound schedule. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents are not averse to this prayer. 5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to represent to respondent No.2/competent authority seeking redressal of his grievances raised in this writ petition. In case such a representation is so made within two weeks 3 from today, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks thereafter. 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 September 02, 2026 Judge Mukesh