1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 11896 of 2025 Date of decision: 24.07.2025 Jagir Singh ...Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Ms. Sheetal Kaul and Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- “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) of FRSR with all consequential benefits alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, in view of the law laid down vide judgment dated 28.05.2024 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 matters, 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 -2- 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 16.02.2025, during pendency of the writ petition, in the interest of law and justice.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has represented to the respondents on 16.02.2025 (Annexure P-4), however, the Competent Authority has till date not taken any call on the aforesaid representations. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content in case the respondents/Competent Authority(s) are directed to decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and in light of laid down in Surya Prabha & Ors. vs. State of H.P. & Ors.1 within a fixed-time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/Competent Authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and in terms of 1 CWP No.5390 of 2024 decided on 28.05.2025. -3- aforesaid decision within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 24th July, 2025 Judge (rohit)