Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:29394 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13908 of 2025. Date of decision: 29.08.2025. Suresh Kumar …..Petitioner. Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Naresh Kaul and Ms. Sheetal Kaul, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General. Satyen Vaidya, Judge ( Oral ) Notice. Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, learned Assistant Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs: “a) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to fix the pay of the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:29394 ) petitioner with additional 3% promotional increment as head teacher as per the provisions of FR 22(1)(a)(1) of FRSR with all consequential benefits along with 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 CWP No. 2500/2021 & connected matter, titled as Ranjit Singh & Ors Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., when the respondents vide orders 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 P-5 dated 30.06.2025, during the pendency of the writ petition, in the interest of law and justice.” 3. 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 Assistant Advocate General is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioner. 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:29394 ) 4. Having perused aforesaid judgment sought to be relied upon vis-a-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 representation of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment. 5. 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, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioners in the aforesaid judgment, he would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereupon. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 29th August, 2025. (krt)