2025:HHC:3984 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.167 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.02.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sonia Dewan ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Ankita, Advocate, vice Mr. Abhinav Purohit, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Mr. Balvinder Singh and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main relief:- “(i) That the present Civil Writ Petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned office order dated 02.04.2024 of fixation of pay (i.e. Annexure P-V) of the petitioner on promotion to the post of Headmistress issued by the respondent department may very kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to refix and protect the pay of the petitioner and to further provide the benefits of promotional increment as under FR 22 (1) (a) (i) to next stage higher than lastly drawn by the petitioner to the post of lecturer on promotion as Headmistress. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to provide all the consequential and financial benefits to the petitioner as per the fresh fixation of pay. (iv) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the direction passed by the Hon’ble Court in judgment dated 07.07.2022 passed in CWP No. 842/2017 titled as “State of HP & Ors. Vs. Sardari Lal & Anr.” alongwith other connected matters.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, states that case of the petitioner is squarely covered with the judgment dated 07.07.2022 passed in CWP No. 842 of 2017 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Sardari Lal & Anr. alongwith connected matters and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-VII) of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by learned Deputy Advocate General. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, learned Deputy Advocate General, fairly states that representation (Annexure P-VII) filed by the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 4. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported with an affidavit vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in Sardari Lal (supra) and 2 there appears to be no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider the representation (Annexure P-VII) of the petitioner in a time bound manner. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-VII) of the petitioner in light of judgment detailed hereinabove, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. February 28, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3