IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11910 of 2025 alongwith CWP No.12002 of 2025 Decided on: 25th July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.11910 of 2025 Nival Kumari …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.12002 of 2025 Shyam Chand …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Naresh Kaul and Ms. Sheetal Kaul, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are heard at this stage. 3. Both these writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.11910 of 2025 read as under:- “a) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may very 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 the 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.” 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have preferred representations dated 08.11.2024 and 26.04.2025 (annexed with both the writ petitions as Annexure P-4), however, the Competent Authority has till date not taken any call on the aforesaid representations. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners would be content in case the respondents/ Competent Authority(s) are directed to decide the aforesaid 3 representations of the petitioners in accordance with law and in light of laid down in Surya Prabha and Ors Vs. State of H.P. and Ors.2 within a fixed-time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matters, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners in accordance with law and in terms of the aforesaid decision in Surya Prabha2 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 25, 2025 Judge Mukesh 2 CWP No.5390 of 2024, decided on 28.05.2025.