IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16604 of 2026 Decided on: 23rd September, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kishore Kumar …..Petitioner Versus Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Dhanvanti Devi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Kulbir Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.2 and 3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Kulbir Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, learned counsel and Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, 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 seeks direction to the respondents to grant him Secretariat Pay at the rate of Rs.2800/- per month instead of Rs.700/- per month from the date of his regularization alongwith arrears and interest. The relief has been claimed on the strength of the office letter dated 23.02.2022 (Annexure P-6), notification dated 31.03.2022 (Annexure P-7) and the decision rendered in Anant Ram and others Versus Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni and others2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already preferred a representation to respondent No.1 on 23.02.2026 (Annexure P-9) for claiming the above relief. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to decide the aforesaid representation within a fixed time schedule. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents are not averse to this prayer. 3. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-9) in 2 CWPOA No.122 of 2019, decided alongwith connected matter on 05.08.2020 3 accordance with law as also keeping in view the aforesaid office letter/notification/judgment within a period of six weeks from today. 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 23, 2026 Judge Mukesh