Rakesh Sharma and Ors. Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rakesh Sharma and Ors. Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of without adjudication on merits; respondents directed to consider and decide the petitioners' representation (Annexure P-7) in light of Sanjay Kumar (CWPOA No. 5536 of 2020), expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, after affording an opportunity of being heard; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents ought to be directed to grant the petitioners the benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme by ignoring the enhancement allowed on implementation of the 5th CPC, and to fix their pay accordingly in the 6th CPC from the due date, along with arrears and interest.

Court's answer

Without going into the merits of the case, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' representation in light of this Court's judgment in Sanjay Kumar (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks.

Ratio / Principle

The authority deciding the representation shall afford the petitioners an opportunity of being heard and pass appropriate orders thereafter.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP No.2973 of 2025, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Sandeep Sharma, J.), decided 04.04.2025 — Rakesh Sharma & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.: Petitioners prayed for a direction to grant the benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme by ignoring the enhancement allowed on implementation of the 5th CPC, with pay refixed in the 6th CPC from the due date along with arrears and interest. Before any reply was filed, counsel stated the petitioners would be content with a decision in light of the coordinate-bench judgment in Sanjay Kumar (CWPOA No. 5536 of 2020). Noting the petitioners' pending representation (Annexure P-7) and the fair stand of the Deputy Advocate General, the Court, without going into the merits, disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation in light of Sanjay Kumar (supra) expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, after affording the petitioners an opportunity of being heard; pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

2025:HHC:9240

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.2973 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04.04.2025

_____________________________________________________________________ Rakesh Sharma & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Shivom Vashista, 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 relief:-

“(i) That the Respondents may very kindly be directed to grant the benefit of Assured Career progression Scheme in favour of the petitioner by ignoring the effect of enhancement allowed on account of implementation of 5th CPC and the pay of the petitioner my kindly be further ordered to be fixed accordingly in 6 CPC from the due date alongwith arrears and interest, in the interest of justice.”

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.

2

While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioners shall be considered and decided expeditiously.

Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Deputy Advocate General, coupled with the fact that petitioners have already filed representation for redressal of their grievance (Annexure P-7) , this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners in light of judgment passed by this Court in Sanjay Kumar (supra) , expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. 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 petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

April 04, 2025 (sunil)

(Sandeep Sharma),

Judge