IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12989 of 2024 Date of Decision: 01.07.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Mohan Lal & Ors. …….Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. M.A. Safee, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): By way of these petitions, petitioners have prayed for following common reliefs: “I) That Your Lordships may further graciously be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing and setting aside the order 16.10.2024 & 18.10.2024 (Annexure P-6), wherein the respondents have illegally and arbitrary have rejected the case of the petitioner for the grant of promotional increment to the post of Head Teacher. ii) That Your Lordships may further graciously be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant the petitioners 3% promotional increment w.e.f. the date of their Promotion as Head Teacher, in view of the provisions of FR 22(I)(a)(1) of FRSR with all consequential benefits @ 9% P.A. as has been laid down in case vide judgment dated 07.07.2023 passed in CWP 2500/2021 titled as Ranjit Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh alongwith other connected matters, wherein it has been held that the Head Teachers are entitled for promotional increment in view of the provisions of FR 22(I)(a) (1) of FRSR.” 2. Before reply could be called for from the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioners states that his clients would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide case 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 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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 petitions are disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioners 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 July 01, 2025 (Shamsh Tabrez)