2025:HHC:9240 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2973 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04.04.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Rakesh Sharma & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Shivom Vashista, 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, petitioners have prayed for the following main relief:- “(i) 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 pay of the petitioner my kindly be further ordered to be fixed accordingly in 6 CPC from the due date alongwith arrears and interest, in the interest of justice.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that petitioners would be content and satisfied in case their 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. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioners shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 4. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Deputy Advocate General, coupled with the fact that petitioners have already filed representation for redressal of their grievance (Annexure P-7), 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 petitioners in light of judgment passed by this Court in Sanjay Kumar (supra), 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 being heard to the petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. April 04, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2