IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6949 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Surinder Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Shekhar Badola, 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, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “ i) That the petitioner may kindly be held entitled for the benefit of ACP Scheme of 4, 9 & 14 years of service by giving him the financial enhancements/up gradation for his stagnation in the cadre of Lecturers for 4, 9 & 14 years of service, w.e.f. due date with all consequential benefits, in terms of the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWPOA No.5536 of 2020 titled “Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh” at Annexure P-1; ii) That after the grant of benefit of 4, 9 & 14 years of service as per his entitlement in the higher pay scale in the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 hierarchy for having stagnated in the same cadre of Lecturers, School Cadre, the arrears accrued thereunder may kindly be ordered to be released alongwith interest, in the interest of justice.” 2. Before the reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner 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. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that case of the petitioner 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 petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight 3 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 petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Sanjay Kumar case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 28, 2025 (shankar)