Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 24419 (HP)

KULDEEP GULERIA v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/14336/2024 · 2025-01-01

Jyotsna Rewal Dua

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14336 of 2024 Decided on: 1st January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kuldeep Guleria …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Surender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- “(i) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant the benefit of increment of ACP Scheme to the petitioner on completion of his 4-9-14 years of service on one post and one pay scale, with all consequential benefits, in terms of the Assured Career Progression Scheme as well as in terms of judgment dated 01.11.2023 passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWPOA No.5536/2020, titled as Sanjay Kumar & others v/s State of H.p. & others alongwith connected matters (Annexure P-2).” 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 3. Admittedly, the petitioner has invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without even preferring any representation to the competent authority for the redressal of his grievances raised in the writ petition. 4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be preferring a representation within two weeks from today. In case such a representation is so made, the same shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law within a period of six weeks thereafter. The order so passed 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 January 01, 2025 Judge Mukesh