Abhishek Boras Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Abhishek Boras Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's higher pay scale case in accordance with law, taking into consideration the Mohit Sharma judgment, within six weeks, and to communicate the decision to the petitioner; pending miscellaneous applications (if any) also disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents/competent authority should be directed to examine and decide the petitioner's case for conferment of higher pay scale in light of the Mohit Sharma decision within a fixed time schedule.

Court's answer

Without examining the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's case in accordance with law.

Ratio / Principle

The respondents/competent authority are directed to decide the petitioner's case taking into consideration the judgment in Mohit Sharma (CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024) by passing an appropriate order.

Key takeaways

The appropriate order is to be passed within a period of six weeks from today, and the decision so arrived at is to be communicated to the petitioner.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Abhishek Boras v. State of H.P. and others, CWP No.36 of 2026 (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.; decided 05.01.2026): The petitioner's grievance was that although his name was recommended on 05.09.2025 (Annexure P-7) by respondent No.4 - the Deputy Commissioner, District Kinnaur at Reckong Peo - to respondent No.3 - the Director Land Records, Himachal Pradesh - for conferment of higher pay scale, the competent authority had taken no final decision. Counsel submitted the claim was covered by Mohit Sharma & Anr. v. State of H.P. & Ors. (CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024) and sought examination of the case therein within a fixed time. With the Additional Advocate General not averse, the Court, without examining the merits, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's case in accordance with law, taking into consideration the Mohit Sharma judgment, by passing an appropriate order within six weeks, and to communicate the decision to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were likewise disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.36 of 2026

Decided on: 5^th January, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abhishek Boras …..Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram

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

For the Petitioner: Mr. Arvind Negi, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

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

Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage.

3. Petitioner’s grievance is that despite his name having been recommended on 05.09.2025 (Annexure P-7) by respondent No.4-the Deputy Commissioner, District Kinnaur at Reckong Peo to respondent No.3-the Director Land Records, Himachal Pradesh for conferment of higher pay scale, respondent No.3/competent authority has not taken final decision as yet. Learned counsel further submits

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

2

that the case of the petitioner for grant of relief claimed by him is otherwise squarely covered by the decision rendered

in Mohit Sharma & Anr. Versus State of H.P. & Ors.² . Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case the respondents are directed to examine his case for the relief claimed for by him in light of the aforesaid decision within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer.

4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in Mohit Sharma² by passing appropriate order, within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at, shall also be communicated to the petitioner.

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

Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 05, 2026 Judge Mukesh

2 CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024