IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.16640 of 2024 and connected matters Decided on: 3rd January, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 16640 of 2024 Neeraj Sandhu & Ors …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr …..Respondents. _______________________________________________________ 2. CWP No. 16650 of 2024 Anjana Jariyal & anr …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr …..Respondents. _______________________________________________________ 3. CWP No. 16651 of 2024 Shashi Pal & Ors …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr …..Respondents. _______________________________________________________ 4. CWP No. 16652 of 2024 Anoop Kumr Prashar & Ors …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr …..Respondents. _______________________________________________________ 5. CWP No. 16776 of 2024 Ashwani Kumar & Ors …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr …..Respondents. _______________________________________________________ 6. CWP No. 16779 of 2024 Munish Kumar & Ors …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr …..Respondents. _______________________________________________________ 7. CWP No. 16787 of 2024 Shiv Kumar & Ors …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr …..Respondents. _______________________________________________________ - 2 - 8. CWP No. 16788 of 2024 Neeraj Gupta & Ors …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr …..Respondents. _______________________________________________________ 9. CWP No. 86 of 2025 Renu Bala Dhiman …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr …..Respondents. _______________________________________________________ 10. CWP No. 94 of 2025 Ajay Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr …..Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner(s): Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents in all the petitions. 2. These writs petitions have been filed for grant of following almost common reliefs, which have been extracted from CWP No.16640 of 2024: - 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 3 - “ i) That the Petitioners may kindly be held entitled for the benefit of ACP Scheme of 4, 9 & 14 years of service as in case of the other similarly situated matter in CWPOA NO. 5536/2020 Titled as "Sanjay Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Ors." dated 01.11.2023, at Annexure P-7 and CWP No. 13398/2024 Titled as "Hem Raj Verma vs. state" decided on 22.09.2024 at Annexure-P-8 by giving them the financial enhancements/upgradations for their stagnation in the cadre of TGIs for 4, 9 & 14 years of service, w.elf. due date with all consequential benefits. ii. That after the grant of benefit of 4, 9 & 14 years of service as per their entitlement in the higher pay scale in the hierarchy for having stagnated in the same cadre of TGTs, the arrears accrued thereunder may kindly be ordered to be released alongwith interest, in the interest of justice. iii. That the instructions dated 26.2.2013 at Annexure P-4 to the extent the same treated the enhanced Grade Pay of the GTs from Rs.4200 to Rs.5400 as a substitute for ACP, may kindly be quashed and set aside. iv. That the letters dated 7.7.2014 at Annexure P-4 and the letter dated 9.9.2014 at Annexure P-5 to the extent the same restrict the benefit of three financial enhancements for the stagnation in the entire service instead of stagnation on the one post/cadre of TGTs may kindly be quashed and set aside.” 3. Petitioners have issued legal notice(s), to the - 4 - respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners be permitted to file representation(s) to the competent authority for the redressal of their grievances raised in the above writ petitions. 4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be preferring representation(s) within two weeks from today. In case such a representation(s) is/are so made, the same shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law within a period of six weeks thereafter. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioners. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge January 3, 2025 R.Atal