IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4011 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Chaman Lal & others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Avinash Jaryal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main relief:- “ a) That respondents may kindly be directed to grant the benefit of increment to the petitioners on their promotion from the post of junior basic teacher to Head teacher; b) That matter is squarely covered by judgment annexed herewith as Annexure P-2 and being covered matter respondents may kindly be further directed to consider the case of the petitioner’s for relief granted in the judgment referred; c) That respondent No.2 be directed to decide the representations of the petitioners in view of the judgment 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 referred by granting the benefit of increment as granted to the similar situated in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. Before the reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that his clients would be content and satisfied in case their representations (Annexure P-3 colly) are considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.2500 of 2021 titled as Ranjit Singh and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected mattes, 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 representations, if any, filed by the petitioners 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 representations (Annexure P-3 Colly ) of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the 3 needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ranjit Singh’s case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 21,2025 (shankar)