Amarsh Vs the State of Hp and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.7956 of 2025 alongwith connected matters

Decided on: 16^th May, 2025

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. CWP No.7956 of 2025 Sushma Kumari …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2. CWP No.8000 of 2025 Kamal Jeet …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3. CWP No.8012 of 2025 Amarsh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioners: Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶5

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

¶6

2

¶7

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶8

Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶9

2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive relief in CWP No.7956 of 2025 reads as under:-

¶10

“a. Appropriate writ or direction to the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner at higher pay stage at Rupees 37,600/- from the date of completion of 2 years regular service in terms of notification dated 06.09.2022 with the further direction to release the arrears of salary with all consequential benefits along with interest @ 9% per annum on delayed payment.”

¶11

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the relief prayed for by the petitioners and the issues raised by them in the writ petitions are squarely covered in terms of the decision rendered in Mohit Sharma & Anr.

¶12

Versus State of H.P. & Ors.² . Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners would be content in case they are permitted to prefer a comprehensive representation(s) to the respondents/competent authority within a period of two weeks and thereafter the competent authority be directed to decide the said representation(s) within a time bound

¶13

2 CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024

¶14

3

¶15

schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer.

¶16

4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matters, these writ petitions are disposed of by permitting the petitioners to file a comprehensive representation(s) to the respondents/ competent authority within a period of two weeks from today. In case such a representation(s) is received by the respondents/competent authority within the aforesaid period, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Mohit Sharma² within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners.

¶17

The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above

¶18

terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if

¶19

any.

¶20

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶21

May 16, 2025 Mukesh

Amarsh v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarsh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ran Singh Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Pritam Chand Vs State of Hp

Bati Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Yaqub Mohamad Vs the Hrtc and Another

Arti Vs the State of Hp and Others

Narain Dass Naik Vs State of Hp and Anr.