5.6.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors on 5 June, 2025

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Date Of Decision: 5.6.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors on 5 June, 2025

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

2025:HHC:18149

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                         CWP No.9403 of 2025
                                          Date of Decision: 5.6.2025
_____________________________________________________________________
Jai Singh
                                                            .......Petitioner
                                  Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.
                                                          .....Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner:          Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G. with Mr.                  Vishal
                     Panwar, Additional Advocate General.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Since representation dated 08.11.2024 (Annexure P-3),

having been filed by the petitioner to the Director, Department of

Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, is not being decided,

petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant

proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

praying therein for following main relief:

“(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may
kindly be issued directing the respondents to fix
the pay of the petitioner in the pay band of Rs.

10,300- 34,800+4400 grade Pay with additional
3% promotional increment w.e.f. 01.10.2012, as
has been done with the incumbents promoted to
the post of Head Teacher after 01.10.2012, with
all consequential benefits and interest @ 9% per
annum, in view of the judgment dated
07.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by this
Hon’ble Court in CWP No. 2500/2021 &
2025:HHC:18149
-2-

connected matter, titled as Ranjit Singh & Ors
Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., when the respondents
vide orders dated 19.09.2023 & 21/22.09.2023
(Annexure P-2) have decided to implement the
same, in the interest of law and justice.”

2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been

highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Naresh Kaul,

learned counsel for the petitioner is that benefit of promotional

increment of Head Teacher is required to be given to the petitioner in

terms of judgment dated 7.7.2023, passed by the coordinate Bench of

this Court in CWP No. 2500 of 2021 a/w connected matters, titled

Ranjit Singh and Ors v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., but such

benefit, despite there being representations, is not being granted.

3. Mr. Kaul, while making this Court peruse copy of office

order dated 19.9.2023 issued under the signature of Director of

Elementary Education, states that pursuant to judgment passed by

the coordinate Bench of this Court in Ranjit Singh (supra), similarly

situate persons have been already granted benefit of promotional

increments of the post of Head Teacher w.e.f. 1.10.2012/the date from

which the promotional increment has been released to those 3 Head

Teachers who were promoted as such, after 1.10.2012. He further

states that since aforesaid judgment passed by the coordinate Bench

of this Court has attained finality, rather has been given effect to, as is

evident from the office order dated 19.9.2023 benefit of promotion, as
2025:HHC:18149
-3-

prayed for in the instant petition, is required to be given to the

petitioner.

4. While appearing and waiving notice on behalf of the

respondents-State, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate

General having carefully perused the judgment passed in Ranjit Singh

(supra) vis-à-vis relief claimed in the instant proceedings, fairly states

that case of the petitioner is also required to be considered and

decided in light of Ranjit Singh (supra). In view of the fair stand

adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General, there appears to

be no justification to call for reply from the respondents.

5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is

disposed of with direction to the respondent/Director of Elementary

Education, to consider and decide representation of the petitioner

dated 08.11.2024 (Annexure P-3) in light of Ranjit Singh‘s case

(supra), expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks. In case,

petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioners in the

aforesaid judgment, he would be extended similar benefits. Needless to

say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant

order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass

detailed speaking order thereupon. Liberty is also reserved to the

petitioner to approach appropriate court of law at appropriate
2025:HHC:18149
-4-

time, if he still remains aggrieved. All pending applications stand

disposed of.

June 5, 2025                           (Sandeep Sharma)
     mamta                                   Judge