IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8297 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Raj Kumar …….Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Naresh Kaul and Ms. Sheetal Kaul, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Since representation dated 8.2.2025 (Annexure P-3), having been filed by the petitioner to the Director, Department of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, is not being decided, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for following main relief: “(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner in the pay band of Rs. 10,300- 34,800+4400 grade 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Pay with additional 3% promotional increment w.e.f. 01.10.2012, as has been done with the incumbents promoted to the post of Head Teacher after 01.10.2012, with all consequential benefits and interest @ 9% per annum, in view of the judgment dated 07.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No. 2500/2021 & connected matter, titled as Ranjit Singh & Ors Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., when the respondents vide orders dated 19.09.2023 & 21/22.09.2023 (Annexure P-2) have decided to implement the same, in the interest of law and justice.” 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Naresh Kaul, learned counsel for the petitioner is that benefit of promotional increment of Head Teacher is required to be given to the petitioner in terms of judgment dated 7.7.2023, passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2500 of 2021 a/w connected matters, titled Ranjit Singh and Ors v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., but such benefit, despite there being representations, is not being granted. 3. Mr. Kaul, while making this Court peruse copy of office order dated 19.9.2023 issued under the signature of Director of Elementary Education, states that pursuant to judgment passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Ranjit Singh (supra), similarly situate persons have been already granted benefit of promotional increments of the post of Head Teacher w.e.f. 1.10.2012/the date from which the promotional increment has been released to those 3 Head Teachers who were promoted as such, after 1.10.2012. He further states that since aforesaid judgment passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court has attained finality, rather has been given effect to, as is evident from the office order dated 19.9.2023 benefit of promotion, as prayed for in the instant petition, is required to be given to the petitioner. 4. While appearing and waiving notice on behalf of the respondents-State, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General having carefully perused the judgment passed in Ranjit Singh (supra) vis-à-vis relief claimed in the instant proceedings, fairly states that case of the petitioner is also required to be considered and decided in light of Ranjit Singh (supra). In view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General, there appears to be no justification to call for reply from the respondents. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent/Director of Elementary Education, to consider and decide representation of the petitioner dated 8.2.2025 (Annexure P-3) in light of Ranjit Singh’s case (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioners in the aforesaid judgment, he would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of the 4 instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon. Liberty is also reserved to the petitioner to approach appropriate court of law at appropriate time, if he still remains aggrieved. All pending applications stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 21, 2025 manjit