IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP Nos.10216 & 10228 of 2025 Decided on: 26th June, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No.10216 of 2025 Khushal Chand ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No.10228 of 2025 Chhering Chhopel ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Naresh Kaul and Ms. Sheetal Kaul, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents in both the petitions. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - 2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of almost common reliefs, which have been extracted from CWP No. 10216 of 2025:- “i) 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 & 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.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that the petitioner(s) had preferred representation(s) on 08.11.2024 for the redressal of their grievances to the respondents/ competent authority. The respondents/ - 3 - 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(s), in accordance with law and in light of law laid down in Surya Prabha & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 , within a time bound schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to this prayer. 4. 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 June 26, 2025 Judge R.Atal 2 CWPO No. 5390 of 2024 decided on 28.05.2025