IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15927 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.10.2025 _______________________________________________________ Shri Gian Chand and Others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Onkar Jairath and Mr. Piyush Mehta, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main reliefs: “i. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued quashing and setting aside the impugned communication dated 09.05.2025 (Annexure P-4), whereby the case of the Petitioners has been rejected on the ground that they have been extended the benefit of Higher Grade Pay on the completion of 2 years of regular service. ii. That the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other directions may kindly be issued, to the respondents to grant the 1 st ACP benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme on the completion of 4 years of regular service in the cadre of Craft Instructors/Instructors from due date i.e. 15.08.2018 with all consequential benefits in terms of the instructions dated 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 09.08.2012, 07.07.2014 & 09.09.2014 in view of the law laid down in CWPOA 5536 of 2020 alongwith other connected matters titled as Sanjay Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others.” 2. Before notice, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his clients would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.5536 of 2020, titled as Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Others, decided on 01.11.2023, along with connected matters, in a time bound manner. 3. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. 4. Having perused the averments contained in the petition as well as relief prayed therein vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by this Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of judgment supra. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, notwithstanding the communication dated 09.05.2025 (Annexure P-4), the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide 3 the case of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks. 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 thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 09, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)