Disposed

Sanjay Kumar v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC14 Sept 2026CWP/15835/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought direction for Assured Career Progression benefit for 14 years of service. The court did not examine merits but permitted filing a fresh representation to be decided within two weeks, with the authority deciding the matter within six weeks. Adjacent criminal cases were quickly disposed off after a partial hearing.

What did the court decide?

Permitted to file a representation within two weeks to be decided by the Competent Authority within six weeks.

Sanjay Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 15835/2026 Decided on: 14^th September, 2026

¶3

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sanjay Kumar …..Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of H.P. and another

¶6

.....Respondents

¶7

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram

¶8

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶10

For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinod Kumar Thakur and Ms. Shiney Sehgal, Advocates.

¶11

For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.

¶12

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶13

Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional

¶14

Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶15

2. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to grant him the benefit of the third Assured Progression under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (4-9-14) upon completion of 14 years of regular service w.e.f. 01.02.2014. It is seen from the record that the petitioner had preferred a representation seeking correction of the alleged anomaly in pay before the respondents

¶16

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶17

¶18

on 01.10.2025 (Annexure P-3), however, the said representation

¶19

has not been considered & decided till date.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be content in case he is permitted to file a fresh representation before the respondent/Competent Authority seeking correction of the alleged anomaly in pay and the respondents/Competent Authority are directed to decide the same within a time-bound schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to this prayer.

¶21

Having regard to the above submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file a representation within two weeks, which shall be decided by the respondents/Competent Authority within six weeks from the date of receipt of the same, in accordance with law. The decision so arrived at shall be communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶22

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶23

September 14, 2026 rohit

Sanjay Kumar v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases