Uttam Lal Vs the State of Hp and Others

2025:HHC:7100

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.3931 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.03.2025

___________________________________ Uttam Lal	____________	______________________ ……...Petitioner
	Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.		…....Respondents

¶5

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

¶6

For the Petitioner: Mr. Gambhir Singh Chauhan, Advocate.

¶7

For the respondents: 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. ___________________________________________________________________________

¶8

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶9

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the

¶10

following main reliefs:

¶11

“(i) The respondents may very kindly be directed to grant of the pay scale of Rs. 5480-8925 with effect from the initial date of joining instead of Rs. 5000-8100 to the petitioner, along with all consequential benefits and arrears accrued thereunder may kindly be ordered to be paid/released with interest @ 9% p.a., in the interest of justice;

¶12

(ii) The respondents may very kindly be directed to release revised pay scale to the Petitioner with the basic pay grade along with all other consequential benefits . ”

¶13

Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be

¶14

received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions

¶15

2

¶16

are issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in light of judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 3341 of 2019 titled as Madan Lal Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr., wherein issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated.

¶17

Having regard to the averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported with an affidavit as well as relief prayed for vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by this Court in Madan Lal Sharma (supra) and as such, there appears to be no justification to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation (Annexure P-5) filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided in accordance with the law in a time bound manner.

¶18

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that petitioner herein is seeking pay scale of Rs. 5480-8925 w.e.f the initial date of joining along with consequential benefits in terms of judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 3341 of 2019 titled as Madan Lal Sharma Vs.

¶19

3

¶20

State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Since issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands decided by this Court in Madan Lal Sharma (supra) , this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-5) .

¶21

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 representations of the petitioner (Annexure P-5) in light of Madan Lal Sharma (supra) , expeditiously, preferably within a period of six 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. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceeding in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶22

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶23

March 21, 2025 (sunil)

Uttam Lal v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uttam Lal 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

Tule Ram Vs the State of Hp and Others

Megh Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Hp and Another

Jai Chand Vs the State of Hp and Others

Shilpa Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Anr.

Manjeet Kaur Vs the State of Hp and Another