2026:HHC:6585 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2957 of 2025 Decided on : 11.03.2026 Chet Ram .…Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Subhash Mohan Snehi, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajpal Thaur, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i). That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to count the daily wage services of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.07.1990 for the purpose of seniority. (ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to pay 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:6585 interest @ 12% per annum on the delayed payment. (iii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to re- fix the pay scale/salary of the petitioner on the basis of the revision of pay scale by the State Government from time to time and to release the arrears accruing thereon alongwith up-to-date interest.” 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner forgoes the prayer of counting of his daily wage service w.e.f. 01.07.1990, for the purpose of seniority and will restrict the prayer to re-fixation of the pay scale etc. in terms of date of regularization which already has been conferred upon the petitioner. 3. Learned Counsel referred to the reply filed by the State to the writ petition and submitted that in terms of the contents of the preliminary submissions thereof, calculations which have been mentioned therein, have not resulted in the release of actual emoluments to the petitioner and only a part thereof has been paid to the petitioner. 3 2026:HHC:6585 4. Learned Counsel thus submitted that in light of the fact that the petitioner is now almost 60 years of age, balance of the payment be ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. 5. This Court is of the considered view that as the petitioner is a class-IV employee and the total emoluments which stand spelled out in the reply are also not all that humongous, releasing this amount to the petitioner in piece meals would not serve any purpose as far as the petitioner is concerned and on the other hand, if the amount is released in his favour in lump sum, he may be able to utilize the same for some fruitful purpose. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the balance of the amount, as is payable to the petitioner in terms of para-2 of the preliminary submissions, be released in his favour within three months from today. The arrears which may be due to the petitioner on account of revised pay scale besides what is mentioned in para-2 of the preliminary submissions, be also released within the same period, failing which, the balance amount shall entail simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of 4 2026:HHC:6585 the judgment till its actual realization. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) March 11, 2026 Judge (narender)