2025:HHC:13745 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4389 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Naresh Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs:- “(i) Kindly allow the present petition by directing the respondents to release the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme w.e.f. year 2017 after completing 14 years of service to the post of Forest Guard w.e.f. year 2003. (ii) To direct the respondents to re-fix his pay and pensionary benefits after grant of ACP scheme as prayed in para i). of relief clause. (iii) Direct respondent to release his due leave encashment against his accumulated earned leaves after grant of relief as prayed in para i). and ii). of the relief clause. (iv) To direct the respondent to provide 9% interest on the amount due to the petitioner from the due date till the realisation of due and admissible arrears.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case his case is considered and decided in the light of judgment passed by Coordinate Bench this Court in CWPOA No. 5536 of 2020 titled Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 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 petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 4. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, 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 petitioner (Annexures P-4 & P-6) in light of judgment passed by this Court in Sanjay Kumar (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being 2 heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. May 13, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3