2025:HHC:7133 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1985 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Dinesh Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Shubham Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the 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 of service w.e.f. 01.08.2014 with all consequential benefits. (ii) That the Writ of mandamus or any other direction may kindly be issued to the respondent to grant the ACP benefit on competition of 4and 9yrs of service in the cadre of JB from due date i.e from the year 2014 with all consequential benefits. (iii) 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, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case his case is considered and decided in the light of judgment passed by Coordinate Bench this Court in CWPOA No. 5536 of 2020 titled Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 4. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already filed representation for redressal of his grievance (Annexure P-2), 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 representation of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by this Court in Sanjay Kumar (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. March 21, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2