IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 16432 of 2026. Decided on : 22 nd September , 2026 Pankeshwar ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Notice. Ms. Seema Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. Petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Assistant on 8.3.2000 and joined as such on 13.03.2000. His services were terminated by respondents on 20.09.2003. This action of the respondent was assailed by the petitioner by medium of Original Application filed before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. Pursuant to interim order passed therein the petitioner was allowed to continue to serve. The said petition 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 was dismissed on 26.04.2011 as CWP (T) No. 9716 of 2008. This decision gave rise to LPA No. 250 of 2011. The aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal was decided on 02.06.2016 under the lead case Sudesh Kumari vs. State of H.P. and others, LPA No. 295/2011, along with connected matters as under:- “23. Admittedly, some candidates are in position till today and some of the candidates are out. Thus, it is ordered that the petitioners, who are not in position today are allowed to join forthwith. The period spent during these proceedings is to be computed for all service benefits, except monetary benefits. However, it is made clear that State/respondents are at liberty to conduct regular inquiry, if they choose to do so. The said inquiry, if any conducted be concluded within six months, as per the rules, occupying the field. 24. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the State are dismissed and that of the private petitioners are allowed, as indicated hereinabove, along with all pending applications.” In terms of the above decision, which attained finality and was not assailed any further, the period spent during the litigation was to be computed for all service benefits except monetary benefits. State was, however, granted liberty to conduct a regular inquiry, if it chose to do so. The inquiry, if conducted, was to be concluded within six months. It is the case of the petitioner that no such inquiry was conducted against him by the respondents. Pursuant to the above decision, respondents have issued order on 02.01.2026 (Annexure P-5) fixing pay of the petitioner on completion of 4, 9, and 14 years of service. Petitioner's grievance is to the date of annual increments conferred upon 3 him under the aforesaid orders on the post of Laboratory Assistant. The substantive relief prayed for by the petitioner is as under:- “a) That a writ in the nature of mandamus 'or' any other appropriate writ order 'or' direction may be issued thereby directing the respondents to modify/correct the order dated 02.01.2026 (Annexure granting/releasing the 3rd P-5) thereby financial new enhancement/ up-gradation under the ACPS(4-9- 14), on completion of 14 years of service on the post of Laboratory Assistant w.e.f. 14.03.2014 instead of 11.03.2019 and the 'Annual Increments w.e.f. 22.07.2011 to / 18.07.2016' thereby correcting the date/month on increments as 13th March annually instead of July, with all consequential benefits, in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in LPA No. 250 of 2011, titled as Pankeshwar Vs. State of H.P and ors. decided on 02.06.2016(Annexure P-2), when the petitioner has neither been held guilty in the session trial 'nor' in any departmental enquiry, in the interest of law and justice. b)) That during the pendency of the writ petition the respondents may directed to consider and decide the representation dated 14.01.2026 (Annexure P-6), in the interest of law and justice.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be content in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-6) in accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule. 5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation (Annexure P-6) of the petitioner in 4 accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment 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 Judge 22nd September, 2026. (jai)