Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/19878/2026 on 4 November 2026
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
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…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
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