2025:HHC:4159 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.957 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Amar Singh & others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main reliefs:- “ That the respondents may very kindly be directed to grant the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme in favour of the petitioner by ignoring the effect of enhancement allowed on account of implementation of 5th CPC and the due and admissible financial up gradation/enhancement falling due in favour of the petitioners w.e.f.01.10.2012 may kindly be allowed in favour of the petitioners alongwith interest and arrears, in the interest of justice. 2. Before the reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioners, on 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:4159 instructions, states that his clients would be content and satisfied in case their representation dated 01.11.2024 (Annexure P-7) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment dated 01.11.2023 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.5536 of 2020, tilted Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters, in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation filed by the petitioners shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 01.11.2024 (Annexure P-7) of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. 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 detailed speaking order 3 2025:HHC:4159 thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Sanjay Kumar’s case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. 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. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 01,2025 (shankar)