Disposed¶20

Saroj Kumari v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC8 Apr 2025CWP/3150/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pay scale revision; pay fixation; C&V Shastri Teacher; pre-revised scale 1640-8925/5000-8100; Rs.5480-8925 w.e.f. Feb 2000; arrears; penal interest; Article 226 Constitution of India; no prior representation; retirement 31.10.2025; liberty to file representation; competent authority to decide within six weeks; Himachal Pradesh High Court; CWP 3150/2025; Jyotsna Rewal Dua J.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to prefer a representation within two weeks; upon such representation, the competent authority directed to decide it in accordance with law within a further six weeks and communicate the decision to the petitioner; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of. ¶20

Saroj Kumari Vs State of Hp — Writ and Judicial Review | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents may be directed to revise the petitioner's pay scale and issue revised pay fixation as C&V Shastri Teacher from pre-revised pay scale 1640-8925/5000-8100 to Rs.5480-8925 w.e.f. February, 2000, and release the entire arrears of pay along with regularisation of monthly salary and penal interest.

¶13

Court's answer

The writ petition was disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to prefer a representation within two weeks.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

If such representation is preferred, the competent authority shall consider and decide it in accordance with law within a further period of six weeks, ensure the decision is rendered within that period, and communicate the order to the petitioner; pending miscellaneous applications stand disposed of.

¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (CWP No. 3150/2025, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla) by Saroj Kumari, a C&V Shastri Teacher, seeking direction to revise her pay scale from pre-revised 1640-8925/5000-8100 to Rs.5480-8925 w.e.f. February, 2000 with release of entire arrears, regularisation of monthly salary and penal interest. The petition was filed directly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without any prior representation to the competent authority; counsel noted the petitioner is due to retire on 31.10.2025. Held (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J): writ petition disposed of with liberty to prefer a representation within two weeks; if so preferred, the competent authority shall consider and decide it in accordance with law within a further period of six weeks and communicate the decision to the petitioner; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of. No substantive adjudication on the pay-revision claim.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 3150/2025 Decided on: 08.04.2025 Saroj Kumari …Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents.

¶5

………………………………………………………………………………. Coram

¶6

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

For the petitioner: Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

¶8

Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J

¶9

Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate

¶10

General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶11

2 . This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following

¶12

substantive relief:-

¶13

“ That the respondents may kindly be directed to revise the pay scale & issue revised pay fixation of the petitioner being C&V Shastri Teacher from pre-revised pay scale 1640-8925/5000-8100 to Rs.5480-8925 w.e.f. FEB, 2000 and release the entire amount of arrear etc. of pay w.e.f. Feb, 2000 and regularize monthly salary accordingly, being covered since long along with penal interest.”

¶14

3. Admittedly, the petitioner has invoked extra ordinary

¶15

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

without even preferring any representation to the competent authority for the redresssal of her grievances raised in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is due for retirement on 31.10.2025

¶19

4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner would be preferring a representation within two weeks from today. However considering petitioner’s impending retirement on 31.10.2025, the competent authority be directed to expedite the decision of the representation.

¶20

5. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to prefer a representation within two weeks. In case, such representation is so preferred, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, within further period of six weeks. It shall be ensured that decision is rendered on the representation within this period. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶21

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶22

08^th April, 2025(rohit)

Saroj Kumari v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Kumari v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Atma Ram Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ravinder Kumar Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Babita Thakur and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Dev Ram Vs the State of Hp and Others

Narender Kumar Gupta Vs the Hpsebl and Another

The General Manager Maharashtra Telecom Circle BSNL Vs M/s Super Plateck Private Limited