IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3609 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Veer Singh Sharma & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Parkash Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs: “(i) That the impugned action of the respondents whereby they have denied the benefit of promotional increment by not invoking the provisions of FR 23(1)(a)(1) as has been done with the incumbents promoted to the post of Head Teacher after 1.10.2012 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to fix the pay of the petitioners in the Pay Band of Rs. 10300-34800+4400 GP with additional 3% promotional increment w.e.f. 1.10.2012 as has been done with the incumbents promoted to the post of Head Teacher after 1.10.2012, with all consequential benefits alongwith interest @ 9% p.a.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that petitioners would be content and satisfied in case their case is considered and decided in the light of judgment passed by Coordinate Bench this Court in CWP No. 2500 of 2021 titled Ranjit Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and representation, if any, filed by the petitioners shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 3. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, coupled with the fact that petitioners have already filed representation for redressal of their grievance (Annexure P-3), 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 case of the petitioners in light of judgment passed by this Court in Ranjit Singh (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being 2 heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. March 17, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3