IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10441 of 2024 Decided on: 21st September, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sanjeev Jamwal …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. K.S. Gill, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i). That the letter dated 21-11-2022, whereby the claim of the petitioner regarding denial of ACP on completing of nine years of services as T may very kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may very kindly be held entitled for ACP Scheme on completion of nine years of service w.e.f 1-4-2008 and refix the salary of the petitioner and the arrears accrued thereunder may kindly be ordered to be paid with interest@ of 9%, in the interest of justice. (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 TGT cadre, the arrears accrued thereunder may kindly be ordered to be released alongwith interest, in the interest of justice. 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 (iii). That the letters dated 7.7.2014 and the letter dated 9.9.2014 at Annexure P-8, to the extent the same restrict the benefit of three financial enhancements for the stagnation in the entire service instead of stagnation on the one post/cadre of Lecturer may kindly be quashed and set aside.” Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 3. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner have already been adjudicated upon in Sanjay Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others2. It is a matter of record that in LPA No.146 of 2025 (Hardev Singh and others Versus State of H.P. and others), Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court passed following order on 03.06.2025 in relation to the aforesaid decision:- “5. From the above it would be clear that the issue of parity, which the petitioners were seeking for consideration also would not arise, since the State has already taken a call to keep the issue pending and has rejected the cases on account of pendency of litigation. 6. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that any cause as such which arose in the present appeals, have now become infructuous by virtue of the order passed in similarly situated cases. However, we leave it open to the petitioners to agitate for their grievances, if any benefit is granted at a subsequent point of time in Hem Raj’s case, in view of the final decision in Sanjay Kumar’s case decided by the Apex Court. 7. It would be apparent that if the SLP is allowed then the petitioners would not be entitled for any benefit, but if 2 CWPOA No.5536 of 2020, decided alongwith connected matters on 01.11.2023 3 the view is sustained and the State chooses to take a different view in Hem Raj’s case, then it would be open to the petitioners to agitate for their grievances afresh.” It is also a matter of record that the aforesaid decision has been assailed by the respondents in SLP(C) No.27726 of 2024 (State of H.P. Versus Sanjay Kumar and others), wherein Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 02.09.2026, directed as under:- “Having considered the matter by way of any interim arrangement, we direct that any contempt proceedings based on the order impugned shall not proceed further.” 4. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of Sanjay Kumar2 by passing appropriate order, within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 21, 2026 Judge Mukesh