Himachal Pradesh High Court

CWP/19874/2026 on 4 November 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.19874 of 2026 alongwith

connected matters

Decided on: 4th November, 2026

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

1. CWP No.19874 of 2026 Poonam Kumari

…..Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. and others

.....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. CWP No.19876 of 2026 Vipan Kumar

…..Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. and others

.....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. CWP No.19878 of 2026 Kapil Dev

…..Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. and others

.....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Ms. Rashmi Bharali, Advocate vice Mr. Arush Matlotia, Advocate.

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

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

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. Petitioners’ grievance is that they have preferred representations on 30.10.2025 (Annexure P-4 in all the writ petitions), seeking equal pay for equal work against the post of Technical Assistant, to respondent No.2, however, the said representations have not been considered and decided till date. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would be content in case respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to decide the aforesaid representations in accordance with law within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer.

3. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matters, these writ petitions are disposed of with direction to respondent No.2/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners (Annexure P-4) in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners.

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

Jyotsna Rewal Dua November 04, 2026

Judge Mukesh

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead