2025:HHC:6830 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3879 of 2025 Date of Decision: 20.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Bhuvneshwari Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Gambhir Singh Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondent: 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-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs: “(i) Writ in the nature of certiorari may very kindly be issued, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 17.01.2014 (Annexure P-2) & the impugned recovery orders dated 1.09.2016 (Annexure P-5) and consequential orders, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice; and/or (ii) Writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to extend the benefits of the judgment dated 06.08.2024 in CWPOA No.1237 of 2020 and connected matters (Annexure P-9) to the present case; and/or (iii) Writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to re-fix the Applicant's pay and re-calculate the ACP benefits in strict conformity with his original entitlements as provided under the government instructions dated 14.06.1989, 6.04.1990 and 1.12.1999 (Annexures P-6, P- 7 and P-8), and to restore all benefits wrongly withdrawn or reduced, along with paying the Applicant all arrears along with interest at the prevailing rate arising from the erroneous re- fixation of pay and wrongful withdrawal of ACP benefits; and/or (iv) Writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to duly consider the formal representation submitted by the Applicant (Annexure P-10) and prevent any further unauthorized recovery actions; and/or.” 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 her case is considered and decided in light of judgment passed by Principal Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 1237 of 2020 titled as Braham Dass Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. alongwith connected matters. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is 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 aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already filed representation for redressal of her 2 grievance (Annexure P-10), 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 case of the petitioner in terms of aforesaid judgment, 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 appropriate order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. March 20, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3