IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.10010 of 2024 Decided on: 03.04.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Rajesh Kumar Chamail ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with 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. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following reliefs:- “(i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant the benefit of higher pay to the petitioner on promotion from the post of Lecturer to the post of Headmaster as per Fundamental Rules 22(1)(a)(1). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - The pay of the petitioner on the post of Headmaster may be fixed at next higher stage vis-à-vis the pay the petitioner was getting on the post of Lecturer at the time of promotion and further pay till date be also re-fixed as such. The petitioner may be extended the benefit of the principles as laid down in judgment dated 07.07.2022, Annexure P-1, passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No.842 of 2017 titled as State of H.P. and others versus Sardari Lal and another in favour of the petitioner, with all consequential benefits. Any wrongful recovery may be set aside.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision rendered in State of H.P. and others Vs. Sardari Lal and Another2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would be content if the case of the petitioner is considered by the respondents in light of the aforesaid judgment. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to this prayer. 4. Having regard to above submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The 2 CWp No.842 of 20117, decided alonwith other connected matters on 07.07.2022 - 3 - decision so arrived at, shall also be communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge April 3, 2025 R.Atal