CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Naresh Chand And Others vs State Of H.P. And Others

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 10 August 2023 · Citation: (2023) 08 SHI CK 0046

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 4069 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

9 paragraphs · 337 words

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, 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 for the grant of following substantive reliefs:-

“a. That respondents may kindly be directed to grant revised pay scale of Rs.10,300-34,800/- with appropriate grade pay of the post to petitioners w.e.f. 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2010.

b. That in alternate respondents may kindly be directed to release the revised scale of Rs.10300-34800 with respective grade pay of the post to petitioners w.e.f. 1-4- 2007 to 31-03-2010, on the analogy of judgment passed in CWPOA 7661/2019 titled as Pushap Raj Khimta and others versus State of H.P. and others.

c. That instruction dated 24-07-2014 (Annexure P-5) may also be quashed and set aside.”

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respective cases of the petitioners are squarely covered by the judgment dated 29.06.2022 passed by this Court in CWPOA No.7661 of 2019 (Pushap Raj Khimta and others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others). Learned counsel further 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 their grievances raised in the writ petition in light of the aforesaid judgment 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 by directing the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the respective cases of the petitioners for redressal of their grievances raised in the writ petition, in accordance with law and taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Pushap Raj Khimta, supra, within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners.

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