IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12995 of 2025 Date of Decision: 12.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Netar Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Jagat Pal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Cook at Police Line Bharari, Tehsil & District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved since despite his having served the department for more than 18 years, he has not been promoted to the post of Constable/Clerk. Initially, petitioner was engaged as Cook in the Police Department, but his services were regularized on 09.09.2013. For the last 18 years, he has been working against the post of Cook. Recruitment and Promotion Rules formulated by the Police Department provide for the promotion of Cook to the post of Constable under 10% quota, but despite there being availability of 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 vacancies, no steps have been taken by the Police Department to convene the DPC for promotion of the petitioner as well as other similarly situated persons. In afore background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the reliefs as reproduced hereinbelow:- “(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the post of Cook to Constable/Clerk in the Police Department of Himachal Pradesh by way of implementing promotional Rules or by way of under 10% quota in HP Police Department in the interest of justice. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the revised pay scale in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner, in a time bound manner. 3. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 3 4. Having taken note of grouse of the petitioner, coupled with the fact that Recruitment & Promotion Rules provide for 10% quota in Police Department for promotion of Cook to the post of Constable/Clerk, 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 pending representation (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner sympathetically and expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. 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 appropriate orders. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 12, 2025 (Sunil)