Disposed¶15

Subhash Chand v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Nov 2025CWP/16735/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: stepping up of pay; pay parity with junior; time-bound decision on representation; mandamus; Annexure P-5; representation dated 18.08.2025; six weeks; Union of India and Others v. Madhav Murti (2022) 6 SCC 183; Yatinder Nath Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others (CWP No.2247 of 2022); State of Himachal Pradesh; merits not examined; writ petition disposed of with direction.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 18.08.2025 (Annexure P-5) in accordance with law within six weeks and communicate the decision; no relief on the merits of the pay step-up claim was granted. ¶15

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to stepping up of his basic pay from Rs.48927/- to Rs.54200/- at par with his junior, Respondent No.4 (Shri Gyar Singh Negi), w.e.f. 01.11.2017, with consequential benefits including refixation of pay, arrears with interest and protection of seniority. +1 more

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Without examining the merits of the pay-stepping-up claim, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 18.08.2025 (Annexure P-5) in accordance with law, keeping in view the decisions cited in the petition and mentioned in the representation.

¶12

Key takeaways

The decision on the representation is to be rendered within six weeks and communicated to the petitioner.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP No.16735 of 2025 (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Sandeep Sharma, J., oral; decided 07.11.2025): Shri Subhash Chand petitioned for a mandamus directing the respondents to step up his basic pay from Rs.48927/- to Rs.54200/- at par with his junior, Respondent No.4 Shri Gyar Singh Negi, w.e.f. 01.11.2017, invoking Union of India and Others v. Madhav Murti, (2022) 6 SCC 183 and the judgment in CWP No.2247 of 2022, Yatinder Nath Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, and seeking consequential benefits including refixation of pay, arrears with interest and protection of seniority. His representation dated 18.08.2025 (Annexure P-5) to respondent No.2 was pending undecided. Without examining the merits, the Court disposed of the writ petition, directing respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law, keeping in view the cited decisions, within six weeks, and to communicate the decision to the petitioner; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stood disposed of.

¶1

1IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.16735 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.11.2025

¶3

_______________________ Shri Subhash Chand State of Himachal Pra	_________________________ Versus desh & Ors.	_____________________ ……...Petitioner …....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S Whether approved for	andeep Sharma, Judge. reporting?
For the Petitioner:	Mr. Onkar Jairath & Advocates.	Ms. Neha Thakur,
For the respondents:	Mr. Anup Rattan, Advoc	ate General with Mr.
	Rajan Kahol & Mr Additional Advocates	. Vishal Panwar, General, Mr. Ravi
	Chauhan & Mr. Anis Advocates General.	h Banshtu, Deputy

¶4

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶5

Notice confined to respondents No.1 to 3, which is waived by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General.

¶6

In view of nature of order being passed hereinafter, neither notice of this petition is required to be issued to respondent No.4 nor reply is required to be called for from the appearing respondents.

¶7

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage.

¶8

This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:-

¶9

¶10

“A. That a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction may kindly be issued, directing the Respondents to step up the basic pay of the Petitioner from Rs.48927/- to Rs.54200/- at par with his junior, Respondent No.4 namely Shri Gyar Singh Negi, w.e.f. 01.11.2017, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and Others v. Madhav Murti, (2022) 6 SCC 183, as well as the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No.2247 of 2022, Yatinder Nath Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, and further to grant all consequential benefits including refixation of pay in subsequent revisions, release of arrears of pay and allowances along with interest thereon, and protection of seniority, within such time as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper.”

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has preferred a representation to respondent No.2 on 18.08.2025 (Annexure P-5) for stepping up of his pay at par with his junior-respondent No.4. Relief has been claimed on the strength of the decisions mentioned above, however, till date the said representation has not been decided. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case respondent No.2/ competent authority is directed to decide the aforesaid representation within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer.

¶12

Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.2/ competent authority to

¶13

¶14

consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 18.08.2025 (Annexure P-5) in accordance with law, keeping in view the above-decisions as also the decisions mentioned by the petitioner in his representation, within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner.

¶15

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶16

November 07, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge

Subhash Chand v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Chand 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manisha Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Abhishek Choudhary Vs the State of Hp and Others

Suraj Singh Vs Hrtc and Others

Anupama Makhaik Vs the State of Hp and Others

Rakesh Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Another

Sumit Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others