IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15076/2025 Decided on: 09.10.2025 Harbinder Singh …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. ……………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Heard. 3. Petitioner was one of the petitioners in Satnam Singh & Anr. Vs. State of H.P. & Anr.2, wherein applicability of decision rendered in State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Sardari Lal & Anr.3 was prayed for. Satnam Singh & Anr.2 was disposed of with direction to the respondents/competent authority to decide the cases of the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 CWP No. 5723/2023 decided on 23.08.2023 3 CWP No. 842/2017 decided on 07.07.2022 2 petitioners for redressal of their grievances, in accordance with law and taking into consideration Sardari Lal3. Pursuant thereto, respondents issued office order dated 08.10.2024 (Annexure P-2), whereby benefit of Sardari Lal3 was accorded in favour of the petitioner. 4. Petitioner’s present grievance is that while implementing the judgment rendered in Sardari Lal3 in his case, the respondents have not protected the pay drawn by him at the time of his promotion to the post of Head Master, whereas in Sardari Lal3, it was specifically directed that on promotion of a Lecturer as Head Master, the pay drawn by him as Lecturer shall be protected. It appears from the record that the petitioner has not pointed out to the respondent this aspect-alleged lapse in the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in case liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents/competent authority pointing out the faulty implementation of Sardari Lal3 case in his matter, under office order dated 08.10.2024, he would be satisfied, provided that the respondents/competent authority are directed to consider and decide the representation to be preferred by him within time bound schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to this prayer. 5. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make a representation to respondent 3 No2/competent authority within two weeks for redressing his grievance in respect of office order dated 08.10.2024 regarding protection of his pay on account of promotion from the post of Lecturer to that of the Head Master. In case, such representation is so preferred by the petitioner, the same shall be considered and decided within six weeks, thereafter, in accordance with law and in consonance with Sardari Lal3. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 09th October, 2025(rohit)