2025:HHC:4206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2907 of 2025 Date of Decision: 03.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Laiq Ram Chauhan ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Naresh K.Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: 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 relief:- “(i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant one notional annual increment to the petitioner after completion of his 12 months of service on 31.12.2017 and re-fix his pension accordingly in view of the judgment dated 12.07.2023 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 2005/2023, titled as Sanjeev Sood v/s State of H.P. & others (Annexure P-2) with all consequential benefits.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment dated 12.07.2023 passed by Principal Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2005 of 2023 titled as Sanjeev Sood Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Principal Division Bench of this Court in Sanjeev Sood (supra) and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-4) in light of aforesaid judgment. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by learned Additional Advocate General. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation (Annexure P-4) filed by the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, which is duly supported with an affidavit vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Principal Division Bench of this Court in Sanjeev Sood (supra) and as such, there appears to be no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-4) in a time bound manner. 2 5. 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-4) in light of judgment detailed hereinabove, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six 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. March 03, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3