IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.953 of 2026 Date of Decision: 09.01.2026 _______________________________________________________ Meena Kumari …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Another ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Santosh Kumar and Mr. Nitish, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Before notices, if any could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this Court to judgment dated 21.05.2024, passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in bunch of petitions, lead case whereof is CWP No. 8148 of 2022, titled as Yashwant Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., to state that issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings, already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid judgment and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment. He further submitted that in one of the connected cases i.e. COPC No. 722 of 2024 in CWP 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 No.2056 of 2023, titled as Ghanshyam Dass and Ors. v. Mr. Devesh Kumar and Ors. decided on 18.6.2025, afore judgment has not only been implemented, but benefit arising out of the same has already been released to the petitioners in terms of orders passed by this Court in Ghanshyam Dass (supra). 2. Having carefully perused aforesaid judgment vis-à-vis relief sought in the instant petition, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, states that he is not opposed to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioner with regard to disposal of her representation. 3. Having carefully perused averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, this Court finds that issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid judgment. Limited grievance of the petitioner in the case at hand is that as Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022 were given effect w.e.f. 1.1.2016, therefore, petitioner is also entitled to be paid the difference of the minimum of pay band plus grade pay as was actually paid to them vis- à-vis the minimum of pay band plus grade pay after revision. Coordinate Bench of this Court having taken note of aforesaid fact has already directed in bunch of petitions, as has been noticed 3 hereinabove, to fix the pay of the petitioners for the period they served on contract basis in the revised pay band plus grade pay along with such hike, to which they are entitled to in terms of revised notification, which has been not held invalid till date. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of Yashwant Kumar (supra), which has not been interfered till date, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, she would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge January 09, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)