IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.187 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27.2.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Netter Singh and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main reliefs: “a) That respondents may kindly be directed to grant the benefit of ACP after completion of 4 years of service as TGTs or respondents may be directed to grant the benefits of All ACP after completion of 4,9 and 14 years of services, with all consequential benefits and interest @ 9% on delayed payment. b) That in alternate petitioner may also be granted the benefits of 4-9-14, more particularly ACP after 4 years on the analogy of judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWPOA No. 5536 of 2020 along with other connected matters titled as Sanjay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. along with all consequential benefits.” - 2 - 2. Before reply, if any, could be called from the respondents, Mr. Parav Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners invited attention of this Court to the judgment dated 1.11.2023 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 5536 of 2020, titled Sanjay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (alongwith connected matters), to state that issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated and as such, petitioners would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the competent authority to decide their claim in light of afore judgment. 3. Having regard to innocuous prayer made by the petitioner coupled with the nature of order proposed to be passed by this Court, there appears to be no justification to call for reply from the respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting the notice on behalf of the respondent fairly states that representation (Annexure P-11), if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused pleadings adduced on record vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant proceedings, already stands adjudicated and as such, there appears to be no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioners in light of afore judgment. - 3 - 6. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid judgment expeditiously, preferably, within six weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass a speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. February 27, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge