IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11999 of 2025 Date of Decision: 25.07.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Shashi Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Sheetal Kaul, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs: “(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 28.05.2025 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 P4 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 petitioner states that his client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner 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 petitioner. 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 petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-4) in light of Surya Prabha (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks from today. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, she 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 2 the petitioner and pass speaking order thereupon. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. July 25, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3