Disposed¶25

Vandana Sharma v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC17 Dec 2025CWP/16514/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contract employees TGT Himachal Pradesh; revised emoluments 60% of minimum of pay scale vs minimum of pay scale; notification dated 12-01-2022 Annexure P-5; parity with regular employees; arrears with interest from 01-01-2016; Yashwant Kumar v. State of H.P., CWP No.8148/2022 decided 21.03.2024; State of H.P. v. Chunni Lal, LPA No. 205/2025 pending; representation to Competent Authority to be decided within one month of LPA decision; writ petitions disposed without adjudication on merits.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioners to file representations before respondent No.3/Competent Authority within three weeks; the Competent Authority to decide those representations within one month from the decision of State of H.P. versus Chunni Lal (LPA No. 205/2025) and communicate its decision to the petitioners. ¶25

Vandana Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the notification dated 12-01-2022 (Annexure P-5), to the extent it fixes revised emoluments of contract employees at 60% of the minimum of pay scale, is liable to be quashed by writ of certiorari. +1 more

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The writ petitions were disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioners to prefer their respective representations to respondent No.3/Competent Authority within three weeks for redressal of their grievances.

¶18

Key takeaways

The Competent Authority was directed to decide the petitioners' representations within one month from the date of decision of State of H.P. versus Chunni Lal (LPA No. 205/2025).ratio¶18
The decision arrived at by the Competent Authority on the representations is to be communicated to the petitioners.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.), 17.12.2025: Four civil writ petitions (CWP Nos. 8392, 16498, 16512 and 16514 of 2024) by contract employees (including TGTs) challenging notification dated 12-01-2022 (Annexure P-5) insofar as it fixed revised emoluments of contract employees at 60% of the minimum of pay scale, and seeking payment at the minimum of pay scale with 3% annual increase and interest from 01-01-2016 till regularization. Learned counsel submitted that identically placed employees had already been adjudicated in Yashwant Kumar v. State of H.P. (CWP No.8148/2022, decided 21.03.2024), which the respondents have assailed in State of H.P. v. Chunni Lal (LPA No. 205/2025), pending. With consent of counsel, and even though no reply had been filed, the Court disposed of the petitions: petitioners granted liberty to move representations before respondent No.3/Competent Authority within three weeks; the authority to decide them within one month of the decision in the LPA and communicate the decision to the petitioners.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8392 of 2024 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 17^thDecember, 2025 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CWP No.8392 of 2024
Vipan Kumar and others …..Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and others .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. CWP No.16498 of 2024
Anil Kumar and others …..Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and others .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. CWP No.16512 of 2024
Radhika Sharma …..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others .....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. CWP No.16514 of 2024
Vandana Sharma …..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶2

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶3

¶4

For the Petitioners: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

¶5

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶6

Even though reply has not been filed by the respondents, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are heard at this stage.

¶7

2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant

¶8

of almost common substantive reliefs. Relief clause herein

¶9

is extracted from CWP No.8392 of 2024: -

¶10

“(i) That the writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued to quash and set aside the notification dated 12-01-2022 i.e. Annexure P-5 as far as it provide the revised emoluments of contract employees @ 60% of minimum of pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to regular employees holding the same post.

¶11

ii) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents by directing to pay the revised emoluments for contract period of the petitioners @ minimum of pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to regular employees holding the same post of TGT w.e.f. 01-01-2016 till their regularization of service along with 3% annual hike. The arrears with interests at market rate on delay payment, on account of revision @ minimum of pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to regular employees holding the same post w.e.f. 01-01-2016, shall also be paid to the petitioners for service rendered in the department on contract basis.”

¶12

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits

¶13

that respective cases of the petitioner(s), issue raised by them and the reliefs claimed herein have already been

¶14

¶15

adjudicated upon in Yashwant Kumar and others versus

¶16

State of H.P. and others² Learned counsel further submits that petitioner(s) would be satisfied in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to consider the respective cases of the petitioner(s) in light of the aforesaid decision.

¶17

Learned Deputy Advocate General has no objection to the aforesaid prayer. Learned Deputy Advocate General, however, submits that the decision in Yashwant Kumar² has been assailed by the respondents in State of H.P. versus Chunni Lal³ and the same is yet pending adjudication, therefore, the respondents be permitted to decide the cases of the petitioners within one month after the decision of LPA, i.e. State of H.P versus Chunni Lal³ .

¶18

4. In view of the above, these writ petitions are disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner(s) to prefer their respective representations to respondent No.3/ Competent Authority, within three weeks from today for redressal of their grievances raised in these writ petitions with further direction to the said authority to decide the aforesaid representations within one month from the date

¶19

of decision of State of H.P. versus Chunni Lal³ . The

¶20