IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15671 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Gayatri Devi & others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Naresh Kaul and Ms. Sheetal Kaul, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for 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 petitioners with additional 3% promotional increment benefit as ‘Head Teacher’ as per the provisions of FR 22(1)(a)(1) 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-4) by this Hon'ble Court, in clarification & thereby considering the verdict of CWP No. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2500/2021 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 representations dated 10.08.2025 (Annexure P-5), 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 be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide representation (Annexure P-5) 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. 3 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 petitioners (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 September 26, 2025 (shankar)