IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3341 of 2024 Date of Decision: 30.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Chamol Kumar & another …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main relief:- “ i) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued and the impugned communications dated 15.10.2020, Annexure P-2 as also Annexure P-4 dated 10.3.2023 qua the petitioners may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of law and justice; ii) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued and the respondents may kindly directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for grant of financial up gradation under ACPS 4, 9, 14 time scale/enhancement on and with effect from November, 2011 and December,2011 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 respectively with all consequential benefits of pay, arrears etc., alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. in the interest of law and justice.” 2. Before the case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that his clients would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.5536 of 2020 titled as Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters, in a time bound manner. 3. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General representing the respondents fairly states that case of the petitioners shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Sanjay Kumar case (supra), wherein 3 issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 30, 2025 (shankar)