IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.364 & 366 of 2025 Date of decision: 07.01.2025 1. CWP No.364 of 2025 Yogesh Sharma. ...Petitioner. Versus The State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents. 2. CWP No.366 of 2025 Arvind Negi. ...Petitioner. Versus The State of HP and Others. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioners : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.364 of 2025 read as under:- Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- “(I) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant second financial enhancement/ up-gradation under the new Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) to the petitioner from the due date i.e. 27.09.2021 when the petitioner completed 09 years service as Principal along with requisite arrears in the interest of justice and fair play. (II) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant all benefits as has been done in Civil Writ Petition (Original Application) No.5536/2020 along with connected matters titled as Sanjay Kumar Versus State of H.P. & Others. (Annexure P-4) and in Execution Petition (T) No. 82/2024, titled as Sanjay Kumar Versus State of H.P. & Others & Execution Petition's ( T) No. 20/2024 & 21/2024, titled as Jai Prakash Versus State of H.P. & Others along with connected matter (Annexure P-5) being similarly situate in a time bound manner. (III) That in the alternative the petitioner may kindly be given liberty to make a representation to the respondents and the respondents may kindly be directed to decide the said representation in terms of the law declared by this Hon'ble Court in Sanjay Kumar's Case.” 3. Admittedly, the petitioners have invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without even preferring any representation to the competent authority for the redresssal of their grievances raised in the writ petition. 4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be preferring representation within two weeks from today. In case, such representation is so preferred, the competent authority shall -3- consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, within further period of six weeks. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioners. These writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 07th January, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)