2025:HHC:7103 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3869 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Pratibha Sood & Anr. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Rupesh Kumar, 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, petitioners have prayed for the following main reliefs:- “(i) That the Petitioners may kindly be held entitled for the benefit of ACP Scheme of 4, 9 & 14 years of service by giving them the financial enhancements/upgradations for their stagnation in the cadre of Lecturers for 4, 9 & 14 years of service, w.e.f. due date with all consequential benefits. (ii) That after the grant of benefit of 4, 9 & 14 years of service as per their entitlement in the higher pay scale in the hierarchy for having stagnated in the same cadre of Lecturers, School cadre, the arrears accrued thereunder may kindly be ordered to be released alongwith interest, in the interest of justice.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that petitioners would be content and satisfied in case their 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. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioners 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, reserving liberty to the petitioners to file representation before the competent authority within a period of three weeks for redressal of their grievances as have been raised in the instant petition, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously within a period of six weeks in light of aforesaid judgment. Ordered accordingly. 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. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. March 21, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2