2025:HHC:4257 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.1063 of 2025 Date of Decision: 03.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Lachhi Ram and Others ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for 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 may 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, could be called for on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioners while inviting attention of this Court to Annexure P-7 states that petitioners have already filed representation to consider their case in light of judgment dated 01.11.2023, passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.5536 of 2020, titled Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of 2025:HHC:4257 2 Himachal Pradesh and Others, along with connected matters, and as such, petitioners would be content and satisfied in case direction is issued to respondents to decide the pending representation (Annexure P-17 in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners as well as order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who fairly states that pending representation, if not decided already, shall be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. 4. Having perused averments contained in the petition as well as relief prayed for vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in the judgment passed in Sanjay Kumar (supra) and as such, no prejudice, if any, shall be caused to either of the party, if direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-7) filed by the petitioners in terms of judgment passed in Sanjay Kumar (supra). 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with the direction to respondents to decide the pending representation (Annexure P-7) of the petitioners, expeditiously, 2025:HHC:4257 3 preferably, within a period of four weeks, in light of judgment passed in Sanjay Kumar (supra). Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass appropriate order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. March 03, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge