IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.745 of 2026

Date of Decision: 08.01.2026

_______________________________________________________ Sh. Shashi Bhushan …….Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? ¹

For the Petitioner: Mr. Anshul Jairath, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate

General, for State.

____________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

CBy way of instant petition, petitioner has approached this

Court, praying therein for following main reliefs:-

“i. That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued quashing and setting aside the impugned Office Order dated 01.01.2026 (Annexure P-4), whereby

i the case of the Petitioner has been rejected on the ground that they

H have been extended the benefit of Higher-Grade Pay.

ii. That the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other directions may kindly be issued, to the respondents to grant the 3rd ACP benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme on the completion of 14 years of regular service from due date i.e. 16.12.2012 with all consequential benefits in terms of the instructions dated 09.08.2012, 07.07.2014 & 09.09.2014 in view of the law laid down in CWPOA 5536 of 2020 alongwith other connected matters titled

as Sanjay Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others.

iii. That Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions may be issued to directing the Respondents to also pay the consequential arrears alongwith interest @9% per

annum.”

1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are Pthat in the year 1998, petitioner was initially appointed as TGT (Non-Medical), on regular basis. Upon completion of eight years of regular service, the petitioner was granted the benefit of 1^st ACPs under the old ACPs Scheme (8-16-24-32). In the year 2008o, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Lecturer (Physics), vid e office order dated 22.08.2008. Government introduced a new ACP Secheme (4/9/14), vide communication dated 09.08.2012 which came into force w.e.f. 27.08.2009 on notoional basis and on actual basis w.e.f. 09.08.2012. The petitionCer opted for new Assured Career Progression Scheme (4/9/14) for getting the benefit on the completion of 4, 9 and 14 years in the Cadre of Lecturer. In terms of the assured Career Progression Scheme three Financial Upgradation are required to be given to an iemployee in the entire service carrier. Petitioner was promoted from TGT to Lecturer which was considered as second Financial Upgradation. Now, the dispute is with regard to Third Financial Upgradation in terms of the ACP Scheme which came to be introduced vide communication dated 09.08.2012. Third Financial Upgradation has been denied to the petitioner on the pretext that Grade Pay of petitioner has been revised w.e.f. 01.10.2012 from Rs.4400/- to Rs.5400/-.

3. Respondents vide impugned order dated 01.01.2026 (Annexure P-4) have submitted that Government of PHimachal Pradesh vide letter of Finance (Pay Revision) Department No. Fin(PR)B(7)-59/2010 dated 07.07.2014 (Annexure P4) has clarified vide letter dated Fin(PR)B(7)-59/2010 dated 09.09.2014 that the incumbents who have already availedo three Financial Upgradation other than annual increments and pa y revision, in their entire service, they are not entitled for ACP Scheme benefit under Scheme 4-9-14. In the nutshell, it has been claimed by the respondents that since, the petitioner has aloready availed the benefit of three Financial UpgradationCs under Old ACPs and New ACPs dated 09.08.2012, therefore, he is not entitled for any other benefit unde