IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15420 of 2026 Decided on: 8th September, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rikhi Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma and Ms. Shailja Thakur, Advocates. For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Heard and considered the case file. 3. The case set up by the petitioner is that he was appointed in the respondent-Department as Patwari on 21.12.1988. He was regularized on the aforesaid post on 24.02.1990. Petitioner was promoted to the post of Kanungo on 04.03.2017 and further promoted on ad-hoc 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 basis to the post of Naib Tehsildar in Level-12 of Pay Matrix Rs.43000-136000/- on 08.01.2024. Petitioner’s services were regularized as Naib Tehsildar vide notification dated 20.03.2025 w.e.f. 08.01.2024. Petitioner superannuated from the post of Naib Tehsildar on 30.04.2026. One Sh. Satish Kumar was appointed as Patwari on 12.09.1991. He was also promoted to the post of Kanungo and Naib Tehsildar after the promotions given to the petitioner on the aforesaid posts, yet, Sh. Satish Kumar was drawing more salary than the petitioner. On coming to know these facts, the petitioner made a representation on 19.12.2025 to respondent No.4 for removing the anomaly with respect to his pay vis-à-vis the pay drawn by his junior Sh. Satish Kumar. In the representation, the petitioner pointed out that his basic pay in Level-12, Cell-16, after promotion to the post of Naib Tehsildar, had been fixed at Rs.67000/- per month, whereas, the basic pay of his junior Sh. Satish Kumar in Level-12, Cell-18, had been fixed at Rs.71100/-. There was a difference of Rs.4100/- in the basic pay of two incumbents. Petitioner’s grievance is to the decision of the respondents as contained in office letter dated 27.01.2026 3 (Annexure P-6), whereby his representation has been rejected with following reason:- “In this connection, it is intimated that the record of your service book has been checked and found that your pay has rightly been fixed as per norms. This is for your kind information please.” 4. There is justification in petitioner’s contention that his representation has been rejected in a most cursory manner. The impugned decision dated 27.01.2026 does not throw any insight as to why petitioner’s representation for removing the alleged pay anomaly in his basic pay vis-à-vis his junior Sh. Satish Kumar has been turned down. The impugned communication does not reflect any application of mind. No reasons can be deciphered from the impugned communication for rejecting petitioner’s representation. 5. Accordingly, the impugned decision as contained in office letter dated 27.01.2026 (Annexure P-6) is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.3/competent authority is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law and pass a speaking & reasoned order within a period of six weeks from today. In the process of deciding the representation, an opportunity of hearing be also provided 4 to the petitioner. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to him. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 08, 2026 Judge Mukesh