Suresh Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.3690 of 2025

Date of Decision: 18.03.2025

____________ ___________________________________________ Suresh Kumar …….Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________

¶5

Coram:

¶6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

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

¶9

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for

¶10

following main relief:-

¶11

“(i). That the respondents may very kindly be directed to grant the pay scale of Rs. 5480-8925 as is prescribed to the post of Shastri Teacher instead of pay scale of Rs. 5000-8100 as was granted to him on his initial appointment on 15.09.1998, with all consequential benefits and the arrears accrued thereunder may very kindly be ordered to be released with interest @ 9% per annum in the interest of justice;

¶12

Before the reply could be received on behalf of the

¶13

respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on

¶14

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

¶15

2

¶16

instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case his pending representation dated 01.01.2025 (Annexure P-2) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.3341 of 2019 titled Madan Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another , in a time bound manner.

¶17

Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶18

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 pending representation dated 01.01.2025 (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner 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 hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon, taking note of judgment rendered by this Court in Madan

¶19

3

¶20

Lal’s case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶21

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶22

March 18,2025

¶23

(shankar)

Suresh Kumar v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar 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

Hira Lal Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

Hem Singh Vs Rohan Chand Thakuir and Anr.

Hem Raj Vs State of Hp and Others

Rajinder Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

Manoj Kumar Vs the Hrtc and Another

Kailash Chand and Others Vs State of Hp and Another