Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8796 (HP)

SUNIL KUMAR v. STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/1146/2025 · 2026-05-06

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:HHC:14844 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1146 of 2025 Decided on : 06.05.2026 Sunil Kumar Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Subhash Chander , Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1 to 3. Mr.Sanjeev K. Suri, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (oral) By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “A.That in the above premises, this Hon’ble Court humbly requested to issue the appropriate Writ, Orders or Directions to the respondents to give the similar pay scale as given to the respondent No.04, since September, 2015 to till date by rectifying the anomaly in the pay scale, with all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice. B. That the respondents may please be directed to consider the Annexure P-7 & further directed to produce the entire record of present petitioner & respondent No.04 unto this Hon’ble Court to do substantial justice.” 2. The petitioner has approached this Court keeping in view the facts that there was a pay anomaly in his pay viz-a-viz his juniors. When the matter was taken up for consideration today, the Court stands inform that the pay anomaly was on account of wrong fixation of pay 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. 2026:HHC:14844 of respondent No.4 and the said mistake stands rectified and the pay of respondent No.4 stands reduced. 3. As this fact could not be disputed by the learned Counsel for petitioner, therefore, obviously petitioner cannot claim any parity with the pay of respondent No.4. The petition having lost its efficacy. Petition stands disposed of. 4. At this stage, Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that the right of respondent No.4 to assail the order passed by the authorities of reducing his pay be protected. Ordered accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 06, 2026 (meera)