2025:HHC:3508 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.16767 of 2024 Date of Decision: 25.02.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Rajneesh Kaundal ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Shubham Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “I. That the respondents may be directed to grant first and third financial enhancement/upgradation under the new ACPS on the completion of 4 yrs of service w.e.f. 01.08.2014 with all consequential benefits. II. That the respondents may be further directed to calculate the arrears on account of grant of their financial upgradation under the new ACPS (4/9/14) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum.” 2. Before reply, if any, could be filed on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner while inviting attention of this Court to Annexure P-2 states that petitioner has already filed representation to consider his case in light of judgment dated 01.11.2023, passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP 2025:HHC:3508 2 No.5536 of 2020 along with connected matters, titled Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case direction is issued to respondents to decide the pending representation (Annexure P-2) in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner as well as order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for 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 afore respondents fairly states that pending representation, if any, shall be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. 4. Having perused averments contained in the petition as well as relief prayed for vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in the judgment sought to be relied upon, passed by Division Bench of this Court in Sanjay Kumar (supra) and as such, no prejudice, if any, shall be caused to either of the party, if direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioner in terms of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Sanjay Kumar (supra). 2025:HHC:3508 3 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with the direction to respondents to decide the pending representation of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks, in light of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Sanjay Kumar (supra). Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. February 25, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge