IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Ex. Petition (T) No. 20 of 2026 Decided on: 16.07.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mani Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. M.L.Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner seeks enforcement of Mani Ram Vs. State of H.P. and others2. Operative part of the decision is as under:- “31. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by issuing a direction to the respondents to convene a review DPC, for consideration of the case of the petitioner, by considering only those ACRs, which were duly communicated to him and excluding the ACRs for the years 1992¬93, 1993¬94 and 1997¬ 98. This exercise be completed within a period of two months from today and in case, the DPC finds the petitioner 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 CWPOA No. 1012 of 2019 decided on 25.10.2024 - 2 - suitable for grant of the benefits, as claimed in the writ petition, the same be granted to him, along with all consequential benefits, from due date.” 2. Pursuant to above decision, respondents have issued office order (Annexure A-2). Petitioner’s grievance is that Annexure A-2 does not grant benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme on completion of 8 years of service in accordance with law; That petitioner was entitled to first proficiency step up w.e.f. 28.12.1991, whereas, respondents- Department while implementing the aforesaid decision, have given this benefit to the petitioner w.e.f. 26.02.1997. 3. The respondents in their reply have pleaded that benefit of proficiency step up on completion of 8 years of service was notionally due to the petitioner w.e.f. 28.12.1991, however, the same was not granted to him at that stage due to pendency of departmental inquiry. Subsequently, penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner on 26.02.1996, which remained effective till 26.02.1997, therefore, the Departmental Promotion Committee treated 26.02.1997 as the extended date of eligibility of the petitioner and his financial upgradation was accordingly regulated. - 3 - 4. In case, petitioner has grievance to the benefits so extended to him by the respondents, it is for him to seek appropriate substantive remedy in accordance with law as in terms of reply, the petitioner has fresh cause of action, which was not involved in Mani Ram2. With the aforesaid observations, this execution petition to stand disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 16, 2026 Judge R.Atal