2025:HHC:12255 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4191 of 2024 Date of Decision: 02.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Puneet Negi & Anr. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Pawanish K.Shukla, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for the following main reliefs:- “(i) That, a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, quashing the impugned action of the respondents, whereby, petitioners have been denied the benefit of ACPS on completion Pistrar of 14 year's services in the cadre of JBT, being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional and against the settled law of jurisprudence. (ii) That, the writ in nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or directions may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant financial enhancements/upgradation under the new ACPS on the completion of 14 years of service with all conseqential benefits in terms of Notification dated 09/08/2012. (iii) That, a writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued to directing the respondent to decide the request/representations (Annexure P-4 Colly) as per the mandate of the Sanjay's case Judgments (Annexure P-3) in the interest of justice..” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that petitioners would be content and satisfied in case their case is considered and decided in the light of judgment passed by Coordinate Bench this Court in CWPOA No. 5536 of 2020 titled Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioners shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 4. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, 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 of the petitioners in light of judgment passed by this Court in Sanjay Kumar (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing 2 the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. May 02, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3