Sachinder Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.11437 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.07.2025

_____________________________________________________________________ Sachinder Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. M.A.Safee, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶4

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the

¶5

following main relief:

¶6

“(i) That a writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued directing the Respondents to extend the benefit of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised pay) Rules, 2022 after taking into account the services rendered by him on contract basis as having been appointed prior to 03.01.2022, in terms of Rule 7A, as incorporated vide Notification dated 06.09.2022, and he be granted the Higher Stage of Pay i.e. 37600/- from the date he has completed two years of regular service, as has been held by the Hon'ble High Court in Mohit Sharma Case (Supra) .

¶7

(ii) That the respondents be also directed to release the arrears of pay after fixing his pay @ Rs. 37600/-w.e.f. the date

¶8

2

¶9

he had completed two years of regular service along with interest @ 9% р.а.

¶10

(iii) That the cost of the Writ Petition may be granted in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents.”

¶11

Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment passed by Coordinate Bench this Court in CWP No. 1638 of 2024 titled Mohit Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. , states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Coordinate Bench this Court in Mohit Sharma ( supra ) and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner.

¶12

While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously.

¶13

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 (Annexure P-4) in light of Mohit

¶14

3

¶15

Sharma (supra) , expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. 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 speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶16

July 17, 2025 (sunil)

¶17

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Sachinder Sharma v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachinder Sharma v. the State of Hp and Others

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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suryavanshi Vikas Samiti Bayal Vs Torul S. Raveesh and Others

Mukesh Kumar Walia Vs the State of Hp and Others

Khem Raj and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another

Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another

Ram Kali Vs the State of Hp and Others

Bijma Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others