IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10941 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.07.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Manjeet Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Anshul Jairath & Mr. Piyush Mehta, Advocates. For the respondents: 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, petitioner has prayed for the following main relief:- “i. That the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other directions may kindly be issued, to the respondents to grant the 2nd and 3rd ACP benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme on the completion of 9 and 14 years of regular service in the cadre of DPE from due date i.e. 10.08.2016 and 10.08.2021 with all consequential benefits in terms of the instructions dated 09.08.2012, 07.07.2014 & 09.09.2014. ii. That Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions may be issued to directing the Respondents to also pay the consequential arrears alongwith interest @9% per annum.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case his representation is considered and decided in the light of judgment passed by Division Bench this Court in CWPOA No. 5536 of 2020 titled Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. alongwith connected matters. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 4. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Deputy Advocate General, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already filed representation for redressal of his grievance (Annexure P-5), 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 representation of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by this Court in Sanjay Kumar (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of 2 being heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. July 09, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3