IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1911 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Jai Kumar Sharma …….Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “ i) That the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other directions may kindly be issued, to the respondents to grant the benefit of ACP on completion of 15 years of regular service w.e.f.01.05.2015 with all consequential benefits in terms of the instructions dated 9.8.20212 , 07.07.2014 and 09.09.2014 and respondent department be directed to modify the pay fixation dated 17.1.2024 accordingly; ii) That the arrear accrued on account of consequential benefits may kindly be ordered to be paid with interest 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 @12% from the date of accrual till the date of realization in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. Before the reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case his pending representation dated (Annexure P-6 ) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.5536 of 2020 titled as 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. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation, if any, 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 (Annexure P-6) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in 3 terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Sanjay Kumar 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 he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 22,2025 (shankar)