IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.9339 of 2011-D. Decided on: 28th November, 2011. Om Parkash. … Petitioner. Versus Secretary, Punjab State Power Corpn & ors. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Rajinder Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “a) That the office order/clarification dated 26.9.2011 (Annexure P-4) issued by respondent by which the hardship allowances of six increments was to be fixed on the revised scale of dated 20.6.2006, 18.10.2006 and 29.10.2007 may kindly be quashed and set aside. b) That a writ in the nature on mandamus be issued and the respondent be directed to implement the office order dated 23.5.2011 as per the terms and conditions of the 23.5.2011 and give the hardship allowances of six increments as on the basic pay last drawn on 1.1.2011.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anand Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents. It is submitted that Annexure P-5, representation is pending 2 before the second respondent. The parties agree that the representation can be directed to be disposed of. 3. In the nature of the order, we propose to propose to pass in this case, it is not necessary for us at this stage to go into the merits of the case. Therefore, making it clear that this Court has left untouched the merits of the case and has left open all the questions, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to look into Annexure P-5 and take appropriate action in accordance with law. This shall be done within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. In case the petitioner requests for an opportunity of hearing, the same shall also be granted. Till orders are passed, as above, on the representation, there shall be no recovery of the benefits already paid to the petitioner and other similarly situated persons and further action to be taken in the matter would depend on the order passed by the second respondent. 4. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 28th November, 2011. (Justice Sanjay Karol), (tr/kck) Judge. 3