SUNIL KUMAR(Not Applicable) vs STATE OF HP AND OTHERS(Not Applicable) — CWP/1146/2025
Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 06th May 2026.
CNR: HPHC010624222024
Filing Number
CWP/51346/2024
Filing Date
28-Nov-2024
Registration No
CWP/1146/2025
Registration Date
14-Jan-2025
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench Type
Single
Judicial Branch
Civil Section
Decision Date
06-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Last updated 02-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SUNIL KUMAR(Not Applicable)
Adv. Subhash Chander,Kusum Lata,Kusum Lata, ,Kusum Lata
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF HP AND OTHERS(Not Applicable)
Adv. AG 1123
-
2.The Engineer in Chief (N)(Not Applicable)
-
3.The Executive Engineer(Not Applicable)
-
4.Sh. Hem Kumar(Not Applicable)
Adv. Sanjeev Kumar Suri
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
06-May-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan GoelView PDF
Case Summary: CWP No. 1146/2025 Sunil Kumar sought parity in pay with his junior (Respondent No. 4) from September 2015 onwards, claiming a pay anomaly. The Himachal Pradesh High Court found that Respondent No. 4's higher pay resulted from incorrect fixation by authorities, which has since been rectified and reduced. Since the factual basis for parity was negated, the court dismissed the petition as lacking efficacy, while preserving Respondent No. 4's right to challenge the pay reduction order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
11-Sep-2025
Additional Registrar(j)View PDF
-
17-Jul-2025
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal DuaView PDF
-
21-May-2025
Additional Registrar(j)View PDF
-
11-Mar-2025
Additional Registrar(j)View PDF
-
03-Mar-2025
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal DuaView PDF
-
03-Mar-2025
Notice Before Admission
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
-
28-Nov-2024
Case filed
Registration No. CWP/1146/2025
Case Summary: CWP No. 1146/2025 Sunil Kumar sought parity in pay with his junior (Respondent No. 4) from September 2015 onwards, claiming a pay anomaly. The Himachal Pradesh High Court found that Respondent No. 4's higher pay resulted from incorrect fixation by authorities, which has since been rectified and reduced. Since the factual basis for parity was negated, the court dismissed the petition as lacking efficacy, while preserving Respondent No. 4's right to challenge the pay reduction order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts