IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12531 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.08.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Ram Gopal and Others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): By way of instant petition, petitioners have 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 petitioners with additional 3% promotional increment 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 passed in CWP No. 5390/2024 titled as Surya Prabha & Ors. Vs State of H.P. & Ors. dated 28.05.2025 (Annexure P-4) by this Hon'ble Court, in clarification & thereby considering the verdict of 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 the nature of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation Annexure P-5 dated 08.06.2025, during the pendency of the writ petition, in the interest of law and justice.” 2. Before notices, if any, could be issued in the instant proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioners states that his clients would 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioners 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 petitioners. 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 petitioners 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-5) in light of Surya Prabha (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks from today. In case, petitioners are found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, they 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 the petitioners and pass speaking order thereupon. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 01, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)