IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8408 of 2025 alongwith CWP No.8410 of 2025 Decided on: 3rd June, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.8408 of 2025 Vijay Kumar Purohit …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.8410 of 2025 Sushil Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Abhinav Ghabroo, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Both these writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive relief in CWP No.8408 of 2025 reads as under:- 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 “(i) Issuing appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent-State to grant promotional increments to the Petitioner for rendering services as Head Teacher (HT) and all the consequential benefits arising therefrom. Further, the said benefit may be granted from the date of his promotion as Head Teacher, and releasing the arrears along with the interest @ 9% per annum, in the interest of justice and fair play.” 3. Admittedly, the petitioners have invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without even preferring any representation(s) to the competent authority for the redressal of their grievances raised in these writ petitions. 4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be preferring a representation(s) within two weeks from today. In case such a representation(s) is so made, the same shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law within a period of six weeks thereafter. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioners. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 03, 2025 Judge Mukesh