IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15811 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.10.2025 _______________________________________________________ Arun Kumar and others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Naresh Kaul and Ms. Sheetal Kaul, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main reliefs: “i. That a writ in the nature of mandamus ‘or’ any other appropriate writ order ‘or’ direction may be issued thereby directing the respondents to grant/release the 3rd financial enhancement/ up- gradation under the new ACPS (4-9-14) on completion of their 14 years of service on the post of ‘Veterinary Pharmacist’ from the due date i.e. January, 2013, in terms of instructions dated 09.08.2012 alongwith all consequential benefits to the petitioners, in the interest of law and justice. ii. That the respondents may be directed to release the interest @ 9% per annum upon the arrears after granting relief no.(a) supra, in the interest of law and justice.” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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 representations are considered and decided in the light of judgment passed by Division Bench this Court in CWPOA No. 5536 of 2020 titled Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. alongwith connected matters. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional 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 Additional Advocate General, coupled with the fact that petitioners have already filed representation for redressal of their grievance (Annexure P-4), 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 six weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. 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 speaking order 3 thereafter. In case, petitioners are found to be similarly situate to the petitioners in the aforesaid judgment, they would be extended similar benefits. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 07, 2025 (shankar)