IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2967 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Rattan Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Another ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Munish Datwalia, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “A. That the Honble court may kindly direct the respondents to extended the benefit of Judgment dated 7-7-2023 passed in CWP NO 2500/2021 in favour of petitioners. B. That your lordship may further graciously be pleased to issue the writ in nature of mandamus directing the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner with additional promotional increment on account of promotion to HT w.e.f 1.10.2012 with all consequential benefits as has done with the incumbents promoted to the post of head teachers after 1.10.2012 with all consequential benefits@ 9%.” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Before reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case his pending representation (Annexure P-5) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.2500 of 2021, titled as Ranjit Singh and Others Vs. State of H.P. and Others, along with connected matters, in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 4. 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 pending representation (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner 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 hearing to the 3 petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Ranjit Singh case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 07, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)