IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16010 of 2026 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 16th September, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.16010 of 2026 Chanchla Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.16011 of 2026 Rakesh Mohan Sharma …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. CWP No.16012 of 2026 Rajit …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. CWP No.16013 of 2026 Rajinder Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 5. CWP No.16014 of 2026 Pradeep Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. CWP No.16015 of 2026 Pravesh Rana …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. CWP No.16034 of 2026 Rakesh Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. CWP No.16036 of 2026 Ram Prakash …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. CWP No.16037 of 2026 Ruchi Rana …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 10. CWP No.16039 of 2026 Pratibha Sharma …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11. CWP No.16041 of 2026 Rajeev Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12. CWP No.16049 of 2026 Veena Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13. CWP No.16050 of 2026 Poonam Kumari …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 4 Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. In view of the grievance of the petitioners and the nature of order being passed hereinafter, there is no necessity to call for reply from the respondents. Matters have accordingly been heard at this stage. 3. Petitioners’ grievance is that in terms of office memorandums issued on 02.03.2024, 16.10.2024 and 15.10.2025, arrears on account of Dearness Allowance (DA) are admissible to them w.e.f. 01.07.2022, yet these have not been released to them. Petitioners seek release of DA arrears w.e.f. 01.07.2022. Petitioners have also alleged discrimination citing notifications dated 10.10.2024 (Annexure P-9) and 03.02.2026 (Annexure P-10), whereunder, a specific category of State Government employees has been extended the Dearness Allowance at Central Government rates from the due dates. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have submitted representations at Annexure P-11 to the competent authorities for the redressal of their grievances, however, the same have not been decided till date. Learned 5 counsel further submits that the petitioners would be content in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to decide the aforesaid representations in accordance with law within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 4. Keeping in view the grievance of the petitioners, which is based upon respondents’ office memorandums dated 02.03.2024, 16.10.2024 & 15.10.2025; the fact that petitioners’ representations (Annexure P-11 in all these petitions) are pending in that regard and having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the matters on merits, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to respondents No.1 and 2/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations seeking release of five pending instalments of Dearness Allowance and DA arrears statedly due to the petitioners w.e.f. 01.07.2022 in accordance with law keeping in view the aforesaid office memorandums, within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners. In case the Dearness Allowance and five instalments of DA arrears are admissible to the petitioners, as claimed by them, the same be also released within the aforesaid period. 6 The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 16, 2026 Judge Mukesh