2025:HHC:29121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7177 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.08.2025 __________________________________________________________ Rajinder Singh …….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. Parveen Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “a. That writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ may kindly be issued Annexure P-6 be quashed and set aside. b. That writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ may kindly be issued and the Respondents may be directed to grant the promotional increments to the Petitioner w.e.f. 01.10.2012 the date from which the promotional increments has been released to such of head teacher who were promoted after 01.10.2012 along-with interest and all consequential benefits.” 2. Despite there being opportunity granted by this Court, no reply to the petition has been filed. Having carefully perused the order dated 22.02.2025 (Annexure P-6), whereby prayer made on behalf of the petitioner to grant him promotional increment to the post of Head Teacher on the analogy of judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:29121 2 Court in CWP No.2500 of 2021, titled as Ranjit Singh and Others Vs. State of H.P. and Others, decided on 07.07.2023, along with connected matters, came to be rejected, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Parveen Chandel, learned counsel representing the petitioner, that there is no application of mind, rather authority concerned in routine manner, without bothering to ascertain whether case of the petitioner is factually covered by the judgment in Ranjit Singh (supra), proceeded to reject the representation. There is no discussion, if any, in the order dated 22.02.2025 (Annexure P-6) that how and in what manner, judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ranjit Singh (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General, after having perused order dated 22.02.2025 (Annexure P-6), fairly admits factum of there being non-speaking order. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed and impugned order dated 22.02.2025 is quashed and set aside, with the direction to respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh, in light of judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ranjit Singh (supra) expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two weeks. Needless to say, concerned authority, while doing the needful in terms of instant judgment, shall specifically take note of the fact that the judgment passed in Ranjit Singh’s case (supra) is not a judgment in 2025:HHC:29121 3 personam; rather, being a judgment in rem, it has already been implemented in number of cases. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 28, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)