Yashwant Singh and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another

For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶13

By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for the

¶14

following main reliefs:-

¶15

“(i) That to issue appropriate Writ, Orders or Directions directing the Respondents to extend benefits/grant of revised pay band+Grade pay for the contract period and for payment of the difference of emoluments between the minimum of pay band+grade pay paid to them for period w.e.f. 01.01.2016 to 31.03.2018 in view of the Judgment dated 21.03.2025 (Annexure P-1).

¶16

(ii) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to grant arrears @12% p.a. in lieu of grant of revised pay band + grade pay for the contract period and for payment of the difference of emoluments between the minimum of

¶17

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶18

2

¶19

pay band+grade pay paid to them and to which Petitioners are entitled w.e.f. 01.01.2016 to 31.03.2018.”

¶20

Before reply, if any could be called for from the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioners invited attention of this Court to judgment dated 21.5.2024, 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, petitioners would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgment. He further submitted that in one of the connected cases i.e. COPC No. 722 of 2024 in CWP 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) 3. Having carefully perused aforesaid judgment vis-à-vis relief sought in the instant petition, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, states that he is not opposed to the aforesaid innocuous

¶21

3

¶22

prayer made by the petitioners with regard to disposal of their representation.

¶23

Having carefully perused averments contained in the petition, which are 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 petitioners 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, petitioners are 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 herein above, to fix the pay of the petitioners for the period they served on contract basis in the revised pay band plus grade pay alongwith such hike, to which they are entitled to in terms of revised notification, which has been not held invalid till date.

¶24

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 petitioners in light of Yashwant Kumar ( supra ), which has not been interfered till date, expeditiously, preferably within

¶25

4

¶26

a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. In case, petitioners are found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, they 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 petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶27

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶28

July 15, 2025 (Sunil)

Yashwant Singh and Others v. the State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yashwant Singh and Others v. the State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bimla Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Sanjay Kumar and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Saroj Vs the State of Hp and Others

Kanta Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Beena Devi Vs the State of Hp and Another

Dolma Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others