CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Ajay Kumar vs State Of H.P. & Others

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 28 November 2023 · Citation: (2023) 11 SHI CK 0085

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satyen Vaidya, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 9430 Of 2023
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 371 words

Satyen Vaidya, J

1.

Notice. Learned Deputy Advocate General accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

2.

The instant petition has been filed for the following substantive reliefs:-

“i) That appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ orders or directionmay very kindly be issued to respondents directing them to step up the pay of the petitioner at par with the pay of his juniors from due date as per notification dated 10.2.2022 issued by the finance department of the State Government i.e. Annexure P-1. Relief sought by the petitioner is squarely covered by the facts & law laid down by the Hon’ble Court in judgment dated 9.10.2023 delivered by the Hon’ble Court in CWP No. 1747 of 2023 titled as Dinesh Kumar Sharma and others versus State of HP & others i.e. Annexure P-3.

ii) That appropriate order or direction may very kindly be issued to respondents directing them to grant petitioner full arrears of pay along with interest to the tune of 6% per annum till realization.”

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already submitted a representation dated 6. 11.2022 (Annexure P-2) before respondent No.3. He further submits that the issue involved in the instant petition has already been decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 9.10.2023, passed in CWP No. 1747 of 2023. As per petitioner, the petitioner shall be content at this stage in case respondent Non.3 is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner Annexure P-2 in terms of judgment passed in CWP No. 1747 of 2023 in a time bound manner.

4.

Prayer being innocuous is allowed.

5.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of without making any comments on the merits of the case of the petitioner with direction to respondent No.3 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 6.11.2023 (Annexure P-2) within six weeks from today by passing a detailed speaking order and more particularly taking into consideration the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 9.10.2023 in CWP No. 1747 of 2023 titled Dinesh Kumar Sharma & others vs. State of H.P. & others. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stand disposed of.