IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15461 of 2025 Date of Decision: 25.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Surender Verma …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Karan Singh Parmar & Ms. Rashmi Parmar, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Parties are ad idem that issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings is no more res integra, rather stands duly adjudicated by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.11176 of 2025, titled Ranveer Singh Vs. State of H.P. and Others, decided on 11.07.2025, wherein Court concerned, while placing reliance upon judgment passed by this Court in CWPOA No.5536 of 2020, titled Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Others, decided on 01.11.2023, has held that annual increment or general pay revision 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 shall not be considered as financial upgradation for the purpose of benefit, if any, under the new ACPS. 2. In the case at hand, precise claim of the petitioner is that he is entitled for benefit of 2nd financial upgradation on his completing nine years service, despite receiving enhancement of grade pay under the Government order dated 01.10.2012. However, afore claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 06.07.2022 (Annexure P-5) on the ground that petitioner has already got three enhancements/financial upgradation i.e. grant of progression under new or old Assured Career Progression Scheme, or promotion or any other enhancement. It has been stated in the afore order that benefit of 9 years under new Assured Career Assured Progression Scheme has been granted in favour of those employees who have joined on 08.08.2012, 19.07.2012, 20.07.2012, respectively, vide order dated 06.07.2022 (Annexure P-5). However, aforesaid reasoning assigned by the respondents while rejecting the claim of the petitioner is strictly in violation of law laid down by this Court in Sanjay Kumar (supra), wherein it has been categorically held that annual increment or general pay revision shall not be considered as financial upgradation for the purpose of benefit, if any, under the new ACPS. 3. Having perused the averments contained in the petition, especially relief clause, vis-à-vis judgment passed by Coordinate 3 Bench of this Court in Ranveer Singh case (supra), this Court finds that case of the petitioner is identical to the aforesaid case decided by this Court. Vide aforesaid judgment, this Court has already dealt with all the points raised in the instant petition and as such, respondents can be directed to decide the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court. 4. Consequently, In view of the above, the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ranveer Singh case (supra) are ordered to be made mutatis mutandis applicable in the present case for all intents and purposes. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of along with pending application(s), if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 25, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)