Jagdish Chand v. State of H.P & Ors.

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Mr. Anshul Jairath and Mr. Piyush Mehta, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3- State in all the matters. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge 2 Notice confined to respondents No.1 to 3, which is waived by Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General. In view of nature of order being passed hereinafter, neither notice of this petition is required to be issued to respondent No.4 nor reply is required to be called for from the appearing respondents.

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

All these writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive relief in CWP No.16350 of 2025 reads as under:-

A. That a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction may kindly be issued, directing the Respondents to step up the basic pay of the Petitioner from Rs.52600/- to Rs.54200/- at par with his junior, Respondent No.4 namely Shri Gyar Singh Negi, w.e.f. 01.11.2017, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and Others v. Madhav Murti, (2022) 6 SCC 183, as well as the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No.2247 of 2022, Yatinder Nath Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, and further to grant all consequential benefits including refixation of pay in subsequent revisions, release of arrears of pay and allowances along with interest thereon, and protection of seniority, within such time as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have preferred representations dated

18.08.2025 (Annexure P-5) to respondent No.2 for stepping 3 up of their pay at par with their junior-respondent No.4. Relief has been claimed on the strength of the decisions mentioned above, however, till date the said representations have not been decided. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners would be satisfied in case respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to decide aforesaid representations within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer.