IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 15636 of 2026. Decided on : 10.09.2026 Jagdish Thakur ...Petitioner. Versus H.P., Board of School Education ...Respondent. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondent: Ms. Richa Sharma, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Notice. Ms. Richa Sharma, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to step up his pay at par with that of one Sh. Suresh Kumar w.e.f. 01.01.2006, along with consequential benefits. It appears that petitioner's representation/case in that regard was considered by respondent No. 1 and, vide office communication dated 03.10.2022 (Annexure P-14), was rejected for the following reasons: "Subject: Regarding removal of pay anomaly Memo Reference to your letter diary No 22082950298 dated 01.08.2022 on subject cited above. In this context, it is to inform you that after 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 perusal of record, it is revealed that difference in your and your junior Sh. Suresh Kumar Assistant Secretary pay is due to the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of HP in the case titled as Mohan Singh & others v/s HP. Board of School Education in CWP(T) No. 7216/2008 dated 29.10.2010 vide which this office order No. HB(1) Estt. GF-9(Vol-lll)/2k-2657-2831 dated 22.04.2000 was quashed and set aside. Therefore, your request cannot be acceded to.” Against the background of petitioner's claim, the aforesaid cannot be said to be a speaking order. No independent application of mind is decipherable from the aforesaid office communication. A comparison of the facts of the case of the petitioner vis-a-vis the facts of his alleged junior for adjudicating the claim of stepping up of pay, has not been indicated in the aforesaid communication. During hearing of the case, learned counsel for the respondents endeavored to urge that the claim of the petitioner was barred by delay. However, even that aspect has not been mentioned in the office communication. On this ground alone, the decision of the respondents, as communicated in the office letter dated 03.10.2022 (Annexure P-14), is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law by passing a speaking and reasoned order, within four weeks from today. In the process of such adjudication, an opportunity of hearing shall also be given to the petitioner. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. 3 The writ petition to stand disposed of above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Jyotsna Rewal Dua) Judge 10th September, 2026 (rohit)