IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10142/2025 a/w connected matters Decided on: 25.06.2025 1. CWP No. 10142/2025 Chharing Dolma …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors.. .…Respondents. 2. CWP No. 10144/2025 Usha Rani …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 3. CWP No. 10152/2025 Sham Lal …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents in all the petitions. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are heard at this stage. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost common substantive reliefs. Relief clause herein is extracted from CWP No. 10142/2025: - “a) 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) 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 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.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that the petitioner(s) had preferred representation(s) on 08.11.2024 for the 3 redressal of their grievances to the respondents/competent authority. The respondents/competent authority have not decided the said representation(s) of the petitioner(s) till date. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner(s) would be content, in case, the respondents/competent authority are directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representation(s) of the petitioner, in accordance with law and in light of law laid down in Surya Prabha & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2, within time bound schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to this prayer. 3. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matters, the writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation(s) of the petitioner(s), in accordance with law and in terms of aforesaid decision, within six weeks from today. The order so passed be communicated to the petitioner(s). Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 25th June, 2025(rohit) 2 CWP No.5390/2024 decided on 28.05.2025