2025:HHC:9960 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5471 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.04.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sangat Ram ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Sandeep K.Pandey, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs: “(i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner on the analogy of CWP No.2500/2021 titled as Ranjit Singh and others Versus State of H.P. and others and other connected matter, Annexure P-1, being squarely covered and grant the benefits of promotion increments to the petitioner for the post of Head Teacher w.e.f. 01.10.2012, with all consequential benefits. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to take the decision on the representation of the petitioner dated 27.02.2025, Annexure P-3, submitted by the petitioner, within time bound manner.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case his case is considered and decided in the light of judgment passed by Coordinate Bench this Court in CWP No. 2500 of 2021 titled Ranjit Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 3. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already filed representation for redressal of his grievance (Annexure P-3), 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 case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by this Court in Ranjit Singh (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being 2 heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. April 09, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3