IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.4403 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Dinesh Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main relief:- “(i)That writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant the benefit of higher pay to the petitioner on promotion from the post of Lecturer to the post of Headmaster as per Fundamental Rules 22(1)(a)(1). The pay of the petitioner on the post of Headmaster may be fixed at next higher stage vis-a-vis the pay the petitioner was getting on the post of Lecturer at the time of promotion and further pay till date be also re- fixed as such. The petitioner may be extended the benefit of the principles as laid down in judgment dated 07.07.2022, Annexure P-1, passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No.842 of 2017 titled as State of H.P. & Ors. Vs. Sardari Lal & Anr. In favour of the petitioner, with all consequential benefits. Any wrongful recovery may be set aside. ii) That the respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to decide the representation dated 20.01.2025, Annexure P- 2, within time bound manner. iii) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. iv) Any other order which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, states that case of the petitioner is squarely covered with the judgment dated 07.07.2022 passed in CWP No. 842 of 2017 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Sardari Lal & Anr. Alongwith connected matters and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by learned Deputy Advocate General. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, learned Deputy Advocate General, fairly states that representation (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 2 4. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported with an affidavit vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in Sardari Lal (supra) and there appears to be no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider the representation (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner in a time bound manner. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, 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 (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner in light of judgment detailed hereinabove, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six 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 petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. 26th March, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Mamta Judge 3