IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9698 of 2025 Decided on: 19th June, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Harbans Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Yuyutsu Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner was considered by the respondents for fixation of his pay under the New Assured Career Progression Scheme (in short ‘New ACPS’) on completion of 4-9-14 years of service. The same was 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 processed by the respondents. Fixation of pay was also carried out (page 27 of the paper-book), however, respondent No.4-the Deputy Director Higher Education, District Kangra declined to fix the pay of the petitioner by giving him the benefit of New ACPS (4-9-14) with the remarks that “Grade pay of the incumbent was revised to Rs.5000/- w.e.f. 1.10.12 (as TGT). Hence the benefit of 14 yrs. is not admissible to him”. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reasons accorded by respondent No.4 for refusing to grant the benefit of New ACPS to the petitioner have already been considered in Sanjay Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others2. That while rejecting the case of the petitioner on the ground that his Grade Pay had been revised w.e.f. 01.10.2012, respondent No.4 did not consider the aforesaid judgment, which was directly on the issue, i.e. effect of enhancement of Grade Pay vide notification dated 01.10.2012. 4. From the perusal of page 27 of the paper book and the reasons for rejection of the case of the petitioner for fixing his pay under the New ACPS, it becomes evident that the decision in Sanjay Kumar2 was not kept in view before 2 CWPOA No.5536 of 2020, decided alongwith connected matters on 01.11.2023 3 declining to re-fix petitioner’s pay. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.4/competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner for fixing his pay under the New ACPS (4-9-14) afresh in accordance with law and taking into consideration the decision rendered in Sanjay Kumar2 within a period of four weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 19, 2025 Judge Mukesh