CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Anju Sharma & Ors vs State Of H.P. And Ors

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 10 April 2024 · Citation: (2024) 04 SHI CK 0047

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satyen Vaidya, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 3064 Of 2024
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

11 paragraphs · 330 words

@JUDGEMENTTAG- JUDGEMENT

Satyen Vaidya, J

1.

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

2.

This writ petition has been filed praying for following substantive reliefs:­

i) That the respondent may be issued appropriate writ, order or directions to pay the Grade pay of Rs. 4200/­ instead of Rs. 3600/­ w.e.f. 3.1.2015 and 07.1.2015.

ii) That the respondent may be further directed to pay arrears with interest @ 12% per annum.

iii) That the respondent may kindly be directed to pay honorarium to the petitioners as per Para Teacher (Lecturers School Cadre) Policy for which the petitions admittedly serving as Para Teacher (Lecturers School Cadre) .

3.

During hearing of the case, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the case of the petitioners and relief prayed by them are squarely covered in terms of decisions dated 03.11.2010 rendered in CWP­T No.2114 of 2008 (Mukesh Manhas & others vs. State of H.P & another) as well as dated 14.06.2023 passed in CWPOA No.3921/2020 (Shiv Dev & ors vs. State of H.P & anr.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be content in case a direction is issued to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioners for redressal of grievances raised by them in the instant petition in light of the aforesaid judgments within a time bound schedule.

4.

The prayer is not opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General.

5.

Having regard with the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.2/competent authority to decide the case of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid judgment in accordance with law. This entire exercise shall be carried out within six weeks from today. Copy of the order be also communicated to the petitioners.

6 All pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.