2025:HHC:36115 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESHAT SHIMLA CWPOA No.826 of 2019 Decided on:29.10.2025 _________________________________________________________ Suna Ram ...Petitioner Versus Principal Secretary (Education) to ...Respondents Government of Himachal Pradesh & Others Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the petitioner: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Ranjan Sharma, Judge [Oral] Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with the following prayers:- (i). That respondents may be directed to produce entire record of the case showing details of proceedings as held by them to consider case of petitioner for taking final decision in the matter. (ii). That respondents may be held liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum on amount of gratuity due to delayed payments. (iii). That respondents may be directed to take decision on the claim of petitioner for grant of benefit of promotion as Block Education Officer, keeping in view his seniority and they may be directed to give all other consequential/financial benefits along with interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date when same became due. (iv). That respondents may be directed to give 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:36115 - 2 - benefits of grant of increments in his original scale as well as in the scale on his promotion. (v). That the respondents may be directed to pay all other dues which are outstanding and payable to the petitioner due to his retirement.” 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner joined service initially as a Junior Basic Teacher [JBT] and was thereafter promoted/placed as Head Teacher and he was due for consideration for promotion as Block Elementary Education Officer in 1992 against the Scheduled Tribe category post for which he had submitted the Scheduled Tribe Certificate to the respondents. It is further averred that though the petitioner had submitted the Scheduled Tribe Certificate upon which he was promoted as Head Teacher/CHT [which is clear from Para 3 of the judgment passed in Criminal Revision No.24 of 2003, titled Suna Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 20.08.2009, but despite the submission of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate, a Criminal Case of forging documents was registered under Section 420, 471 & 474 of the Indian Penal Code in which the petitioner was initially convicted and was later acquitted on 20.08.2009. It is further submitted that the petitioner was due for consideration 2025:HHC:36115 - 3 - for promotion as Block Elementary Education Officer during the year 1992, in terms of his seniority vis-à-vis the availability of the reserved Scheduled Tribe Post at the relevant time. It is further submitted that the denial of consideration and resultant promotion as Block Elementary Education Officer from amongst the Scheduled Tribe category is not in spirit of law. 3. Second contention is that the gratuity which was due on 31.01.2002 including the revised gratuity was released to the petitioner belatedly on 01.01.2009. It is in this background the instant petition was filed by the petitioner. 4. State Authorities have filed the reply-affidavit denying the admissibility of the claim of the petitioner. 5. At this stage, Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate, on instructions of petitioner, as conveyed to him through Mr. G.D. Verma, Learned Senior Counsel, states that the petitioner shall be contended in case the respondents are directed re-examine the entire issue afresh, upon representation to be submitted by the petitioner at this stage. [Statement Taken on Record]. 6. Prayer made by Learned Senior Counsel being 2025:HHC:36115 - 4 - innocuous is not opposed by Learned State Counsel also. 7. In view of the factual matrix and the statement made by Learned Counsel for the petitioner [as referred to above], this Court without going into the merits of the controversy; and leaving all questions open, disposes of the instant petition, in the following terms: (i). As prayed, the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation to Respondent No.2- Director of Elementary Education [now Director of School Education] Himachal Pradesh, pointing out the grievance(s) afresh within a period of two months along with supporting documents; (ii). Upon receipt of representation, the State Authorities shall examine the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter; (iii). Needless to say that all questions are left open and this Court has not adjudicated the merits or the rival claims and contentions raised by the parties herein; (iv). Parties to bear their respective costs. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (Ranjan Sharma) Judge October 29, 2025 [Shivender]