IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.362 of 2025 Decided on: 6th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Praveen Kumar Gupta …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Pradeep Kumar 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. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(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 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Petition (T) No.82/2024, titled as Sanjay Kumar Versus State of H.P. & Others & Execution Petitions(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 petitioner has 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 redressal of his grievances raised in the writ petition. 4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be preferring a representation within two weeks from today. In case such a representation is 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 petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 06, 2025 Judge Mukesh