2025:HHC:4145 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1011 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Jagriti Thakur …….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. Shubham Sharma, 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:- “1. That the respondents may be directed to grant first and third financial enhancement/up-gradation under the new ACPS on the completion of 4 years of service w.e.f.01.08.2014 with all consequential benefits. 2. That the respondents may be further directed to calculate the arrears on account of grant of their financial up-gradation under the new ACPS(4/9/14) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. 2. Before the reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:4145 instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case her representation dated 08.11.2024 (Annexure P-2) 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 petitioner 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 08.10.2024 (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner 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 petitioner and pass detailed speaking order 3 2025:HHC:4145 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 petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 01,2025 (shankar)