Writ petitions seeking ACP scheme benefits of 4, 9 and 14 years for TGT teachers and quashing of restrictive instructions. Court permitted petitioners to file representations to be decided by the competent authority within six weeks and disposed of the petitions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No.16640 of 2024 and connected matters
Decided on: 3rd January, 2025
| ____ 1. |
________________________________ CWP No. 16640 of 2024 Neeraj Sandhu & Ors Versus State of H.P. & Anr |
_____________________________ …..Petitioners …..Respondents. |
|---|---|---|
| ____ 2. |
_____________________________ CWP No. 16650 of 2024 Anjana Jariyal & anr Versus State of H.P. & Anr |
______________________ …..Petitioners …..Respondents. |
| ____ 3. |
_____________________________ CWP No. 16651 of 2024 Shashi Pal & Ors Versus State of H.P. & Anr |
______________________ …..Petitioners …..Respondents. |
| ____ 4. |
_____________________________ CWP No. 16652 of 2024 Anoop Kumr Prashar & Ors Versus State of H.P. & Anr |
______________________ …..Petitioners …..Respondents. |
| ____ 5. |
_____________________________ CWP No. 16776 of 2024 Ashwani Kumar & Ors Versus State of H.P. & Anr |
______________________ …..Petitioners …..Respondents. |
| ____ 6. |
_____________________________ CWP No. 16779 of 2024 Munish Kumar & Ors Versus State of H.P. & Anr |
______________________ …..Petitioners …..Respondents. |
7. |
CWP No. 16787 of 2024 Shiv Kumar & Ors Versus State of H.P. & Anr |
…..Petitioners …..Respondents. |
| 8. | CWP No. 16788 of 2024 Neeraj Gupta & Ors …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr …..Respondents. |
|---|---|
| ____ 9. |
___________________________________________________ CWP No. 86 of 2025 Renu Bala Dhiman …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr …..Respondents. |
| ____ 10. |
___________________________________________________ CWP No. 94 of 2025 Ajay Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr …..Respondents. |
| ____ Cor |
___________________________________________________ am |
Ms. 1_Wh_ |
Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua ether approved for reporting? |
| ____ For |
_____________________________________________________________ the petitioner(s): Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate. |
| For | the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. |
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional
Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents in all the petitions.
2. These writs petitions have been filed for grant of following almost common reliefs, which have been extracted from CWP No.16640 of 2024: -
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes
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 TGTs, the arrears accrued thereunder may kindly be ordered to be released alongwith interest, in the interest of justice.
iii. That the instructions dated 26.2.2013 at Annexure P-4 to the extent the same treated the enhanced Grade Pay of the GTs from Rs.4200 to Rs.5400 as a substitute for ACP, may kindly be quashed and set aside.
iv. That the letters dated 7.7.2014 at Annexure P-4 and the letter dated 9.9.2014 at Annexure P-5 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 TGTs may kindly be quashed and set aside.”
3. Petitioners have issued legal notice(s), to the
respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners be permitted to file representation(s) to the competent authority for the redressal of their grievances raised in the above writ petitions.
4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be preferring representation(s) within two weeks from today. In case such a representation(s) is/are so made, the same shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law within a period of six weeks thereafter. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioners.
The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if
any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge
January 3, 2025 R.Atal
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners stagnating in the TGT cadre are entitled to ACP financial upgradations for 4, 9 and 14 years of service on par with similarly situated employees.
Whether instructions restricting ACP benefits or substituting enhanced grade pay for ACP should be quashed.
Neeraj Sandhu & Ors
Anjana Jariyal & anr
Shashi Pal & Ors
Anoop Kumar Prashar & Ors
Ashwani Kumar & Ors
Munish Kumar & Ors
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
