IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3647 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Gian Chand ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Prantap Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3-State. Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate, vice Mr. Tara Chand Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main relief: “(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued by directing the respondent department to give one notional increment accruing for the period from 01.04.2023 to 31.03.2024 in favour of petitioner for the purpose of pensionary benefits.” 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 CWP No. 744 of 2024 titled Surjit Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3/State and respondent No. 4, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate, state that they are not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, 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 (Annexure P-3) in light of Surjit Singh (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 heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. May 01, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2