Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 23474 (HP)

KHEMA NAND SHARMA v. STATE OF HP AND ANR

CWP/13608/2025 · 2025-08-25

Satyen Vaidya

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No. 13608 of 2025. Date of decision: 25 th August, 2025. Khema Nand Sharma ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Naresh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, Addl. A.G. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). Notice. Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, learned Addl. Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for following substantial reliefs:- “i) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of financial upgradation under ACPS (4-9-14) time scales/enhancement after their having completed 14 years of service at par with their counterparts from the due date. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ii) That the respondents may further be directed to grant all consequential benefits of ACPS from the year 6.05.2016 in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the Judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of Court in CWP No. 5536 of 2020, titled as Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, on 01.11.2023, (Annexure P-2) along with connected matters. He further submits that petitioner shall be satisfied in case the respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-3) submitted by the petitioner in a time bound manner in light of judgment ibid. 4. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of without making any comments on the merits of the case of the petitioner. It is directed that respondents shall consider and decide representation (Annexure P-3) submitted by the petitioner in light of judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 5536 of 2020, titled as Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, on 01.11.2023, (Annexure P- 2) along with connected matters, within eight weeks from …2… today by passing a speaking order. In case, the petitioner is found similarly situated as petitioners in Sanjay Kumar (supra), he shall also be granted the same benefits as granted to petitioners in above referred case. 5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 25th August, 2025. (jai) …3…