IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.14696, 14698, 14699, 14700, 14701 of 2024 Date of decision: 02.01.2025 1. CWP No.14696 of 2024 Milap Chand ...Petitioner. Versus The State of HP And Ors. ...Respondents. 2. CWP No.14698 of 2024 Jitender Kumar and Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus The State of HP And Ors. ...Respondents. 3. CWP No.14699 of 2024 Anil Kumar and Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus The State of HP And Ors. ...Respondents. 4. CWP No.14700 of 2024 Om Parkash Sharma and Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus The State of HP And Ors. ...Respondents. 5. CWP No.14701 of 2024 Jasbir Kumar Thakur ...Petitioner. Versus The State of HP And Ors. ...Respondents. Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners : Mr. Surender K. Sharma and Ms. Anita Parmar, Advocates. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Dalip K. Sharma and Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocates General, for respondents-State. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The writ petitions have been filed for the grant of following substantive relief(s) extracted from one of the writ petitions:- “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 along with connected matters (Annexure P-1).” 3. Admittedly, the petitioners have invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the -3- Constitution of India without even preferring any representation to the competent authority for the redresssal of their grievances raised in the writ petition. 4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be preferring representation(s) within two weeks from today. In case, such representation(s) are so preferred, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, within further period of six weeks. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioners. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 2nd January, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)