IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 16529/2026 Decided on: 23.09.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pankaj Thakur …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors. .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Jagmohan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the grievance raised by the petitioner, order impugned herein, documents placed on record, submissions made and the order being passed hereinafter, there is no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents. 2. Heard and considered the case file. 3. Pankaj Thakur Vs. State of H.P. & Anr. 2 was instituted by the petitioner seeking applicability of Mohit Sharma 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 CWP No. 14457/2025 decided on 08.09.2025 2 & Anr. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. 3 The same was disposed of on 08.09.2025 with directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of Mohit Sharma3. 4. Pursuant to the above, the respondents issued an office order on 12.12.2025. The said office order was a combined consideration of the cases of not only the petitioner, but also of Sh. Ravinder Kumar, Sh. Rakesh Kumar Verma, Sh. Hoshiar Singh, Smt. Rekha Devi and Smt. Sita Devi. These incumbents, including the petitioner, were not held entitled to the benefit of higher grade pay in terms of Mohit Sharma3. It appears that thereafter the respondents passed fresh consideration order in the cases of other incumbents whose names figure in the office order issued on 12.12.2025, and granted them the benefit of higher grade pay. Petitioner’s grievance is that he is also similarly situated as the other incumbents, but the respondents have discriminated by not extending the same benefit to him. The tabulation given in the office order dated 12.12.2025 prima facie gives the impression that petitioner is similarly situated as the other incumbents mentioned in the aforesaid tabulation. It also appears from the record that perhaps the other incumbents might have been given the benefit of higher grade pay scale on the strength of Inder Singh Thakur & Ors. 3 CWP No. 1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024 3 Versus State of H.P. & Ors.4 Be that as it may. In view of the grievance of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3/competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of the benefit of higher grade pay scale in accordance with law, keeping in view Mohit Sharma3, Inder Singh Thakur4 and the orders passed in the cases of other similarly situated incumbents at Annexure P-5 (colly.). Fresh exercise be undertaken within six weeks. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 23rd September, 2026 rohit 4 CWP No.4830 of 2023, decided alongwith connected matter on 07.04.2025