IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.10033, 10035 and 10037 of 2025 Date of Decision: 23.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 10033 of 2025 Chhime Angmo …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ 2. CWP No. 10035 of 2025 Chhering Dorje …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ 3. CWP No. 10037 of 2025 Krishan Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.. … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Naresh Kaul and Ms. Sheetal Kaul, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 By way of these petitions, petitioners have prayed for following common reliefs: “That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner with additional 3% promotional increment benefit as 'Head Teacher' as per the provisions of FR 22(1)(a)(1) of FRSR with all consequential benefits alongwith interest @9% per annum, in view of the law laid down vide judgment dated 28.05.2025 passed in CWP No. 5390/2024 titled as Surya Prabha & Ors. Vs State of H.P. & Ors. (Annexure P-5) by this Hon'ble Court, in clarification & thereby considering the verdict of 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-3) have decided to implement the same, in the interest of law and justice. b) That a writ in nature of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation Annexure P- 4 dated 08.11.2024, during the pendency of the writ petition, in the interest of law and justice.” 2. Before reply could be called for from the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioners states that his clients would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioners in light of judgment dated 28.05.2025 passed in CWP No. 5390/2024 titled as Surya Prabha & Ors. Vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., in time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioners. 3 3. Having perused aforesaid judgment sought to be relied upon vis-à-vis issue raised in the petition at hand, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties in case respondents are directed to consider and decide case of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid judgment. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, present petitions are disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioners in light of Surya Prabha (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks from today. In case, petitioners are found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, they would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of the instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass speaking order thereupon. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 23, 2025 manjit