Disposed¶21

Swaroop Kumar v. the Hpsebl and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Jun 2025CWP/9124/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Equal pay matrix; Helper (Sub Station); HPSEBL (Revised Pay) Regulation 2022; Level-7 pay matrix Rs.28400-92200; HPSEB Limited; representation Annexure P-8/P-6; direction to competent authority to decide representation within six weeks; disposal without examining merits; Himachal Pradesh High Court Shimla; CWP 2025 connected matters; Jyotsna Rewal Dua; decided 02.06.2025.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.1/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioners' representations dated 11.01.2025 (Annexure P-8/P-6) in accordance with law within six weeks and to communicate the decision to the petitioners; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also disposed of. ¶21

Swaroop Kumar Vs the Hpsebl and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to be granted the same pay matrix as given to the post of Helper (Sub Station) under the HPSEBL (Revised Pay) Regulation 2022, i.e., Level-7 of the pay matrix Rs.28400-92200. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

The disposal was expressly made without examining the merits of the matters, leaving the question of the petitioners' entitlement to the Helper (Sub Station) pay matrix open to be decided by respondent No.1/competent authority.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

With consent of counsel and without examining the merits, the writ petitions were disposed of with direction to respondent No.1/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioners' representations dated 11.01.2025 (Annexure P-8/P-6) in accordance with law within six weeks, and to communicate the decision so arrived at to the petitioners.

¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Himachal Pradesh High Court (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge), decided 02.06.2025: Ten connected writ petitions (CWP Nos. 9124, 9126, 9144, 9146, 9148, 9150, 9152, 9154, 9156 and 9158 of 2025) by individual petitioners against HPSEB Limited and another, each seeking the pay matrix given to the post of Helper (Sub Station) under the HPSEBL (Revised Pay) Regulation 2022 (Level-7 of pay matrix Rs.28400-92200) and decision of their representations (Annexure P-8/P-6). Counsel for the petitioners submitted that separate representations had been preferred to respondent No.1 (stated as dated 11.01.2015) and that the petitioners would be satisfied if respondent No.1/competent authority were directed to decide them within a fixed time schedule; the respondents' Standing Counsel raised no objection. With the consent of counsel the matters were heard at the notice stage, and, without examining the merits, the Court disposed of the writ petitions, directing respondent No.1/competent authority to consider and decide the representations (referenced in the direction as dated 11.01.2025) in accordance with law within six weeks and to communicate the decision to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No precedent case was cited or engaged with; no impugned order was under challenge.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.9124 of 2025 alongwith connected matters

¶3

Decided on: 2	^ndJune, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------	----------------------------
1. CWP No.9124 of 2025
Swaroop Kumar	…..Petitioner
Versus
HPSEB Limited and another --------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ----------------------------
2. CWP No.9126 of 2025
Tilak Raj	…..Petitioner
Versus
HPSEB Limited and another ---------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ----------------------------
3. CWP No.9144 of 2025
Kamal Kumar	…..Petitioner
Versus
HPSEB Limited and another	.....Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------	----------------------------
4. CWP No.9146 of 2025
Kamal Dhiman	…..Petitioner
Versus
HPSEB Limited and another	.....Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------- 5. CWP No.9148 of 2025	----------------------------
Ayub Sharma	…..Petitioner
Versus
HPSEB Limited and another ---------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ----------------------------

¶4

¶5

6. CWP No.9150 of 2025 Rakesh Kumar	…..Petitioner
Versus
HPSEB Limited and another -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
7. CWP No.9152 of 2025
Ajay Kumar	…..Petitioner
Versus
HPSEB Limited and another -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
8. CWP No.9154 of 2025
Navdeep Sharma	…..Petitioner
Versus
HPSEB Limited and another -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
9. CWP No.9156 of 2025
Harsh Vardhan	…..Petitioner
Versus
HPSEB Limited and another	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 10. CWP No.9158 of 2025	-----------------------------
Labbu	…..Petitioner
Versus
HPSEB Limited and another	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- Coram	------------------------------
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶6

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

¶7

¶8

For the Petitioners: Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta.

¶9

For the Respondents: Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶10

Notice. Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, learned

¶11

Standing Counsel, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶12

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are heard at this stage.

¶13

3. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.9124 of 2025 read as under:-

¶14

“ii. That the directions be issued to the respondent to grant the equal pay matrix to the petitioner as given to the post of Helper (Sub Station) as per the HPSEBL (Revised Pay) Regulation 2022 in Level-7 of pay matrix Rs.28400-92200 and justice be done.

¶15

iii. That the representation of the petitioner may kindly be decided in view of the facts and circumstances of the matter.”

¶16

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶17

the petitioners have preferred separate representations each dated 11.01.2015 (Annexure P-8/P-6) to respondent No.1 for claiming the above reliefs. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners would be satisfied in case respondent No.1/competent authority is directed to decide the aforesaid representations within a fixed time schedule.

¶18

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents is not averse to this prayer.

¶20

5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matters, these writ petitions are disposed of with direction to respondent No.1/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners dated 11.01.2025 (Annexure P-8/P-6) in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners.

¶21

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

¶22

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶23

June 02, 2025 Mukesh

Swaroop Kumar v. the Hpsebl and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swaroop Kumar v. the Hpsebl and Another

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

Sundla Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Daya Nand Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Kamer Singh Vs the Hrtc and Others

Ajay Kumar Vs the Hpsebl and Another

Vineet Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

Shakuntla Dhiman Vs the State of Hp and Others