Sh. Kamlesh Kumari And Others vs State Of H.P. & Others

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                                               CWP No.8891 of 2023
                                               Decided on: 10th November, 2023
    ______________________________________________________




                                                                          .
    Sh. Kamlesh Kumari and others                                        ....Petitioners





                                               Versus





    State of H.P. & others                                               ....Respondents

    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge





    1
      Whether approved for reporting?


    For the petitioners                   :    Ms. Sheetal Kaul, Advocate.

    For the respondents                   :    Mr. Vishal Panwar,                Additional

                                               Advocate General.

    Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral)

Notice. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. Since representation dated 02.10.2023 (Annexure P-

3), having been filed by the petitioners to the Director, Department of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, is not being decided, petitioners are compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for following substantive relief:-

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2023 20:32:35 :::CIS 2 "i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioners 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 Court in CWP No.2500/2021 and 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 justice."

3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioners, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Ms. Sheetal Kaul, learned counsel for the petitioners is that benefit of promotional increment of Head Teacher is required to be given to the petitioners 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 representation, is not being granted.

4. Ms. Kaul, while making this Court to peruse copy of office order dated 20.09.2023 & 21/22.9.2023 (Annexure P-2 colly) issued under the signature of Director of Elementary Education, ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2023 20:32:35 :::CIS 3 states that pursuant to judgment passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Ranjit Singh's case (supra), similarly situate persons have been already granted benefit of promotional increments to the .

post of Head Teacher w.e.f. 1.10.2012/the date from which the promotional increment has been released to those Head Teachers who were promoted as such, after 1.10.2012. She 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 20.09.2023 & 21/22.9.2023 (Annexure P-2 colly) benefit of promotion, as prayed for in the instant petition, is required to be given to the petitioners.

5. While appearing and waiving notice on behalf of the respondents-State, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General having carefully perused the judgment passed in Ranjit Singh's case (supra) vis-à-vis relief claimed in the instant proceedings, fairly states that case of the petitioners is also required to be considered and decided in light of Ranjit Singh's case (supra). In view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General, there appears to be no justification to call reply from the respondents.

6. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2023 20:32:35 :::CIS 4 disposed of with direction to the respondent/Director of Elementary Education, to consider and decide representation of the petitioners dated 02.10.2023 (Annexure P-3) in light of Ranjit Singh's case .

(supra) expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks. In case, petitioners are found to be similarly situate to the petitioners in the aforesaid judgment, they would be extended similar benefits.

Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of the instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass detailed speaking order thereupon. Liberty is also reserved to the petitioners to approach appropriate court of law at appropriate time, if they still remain aggrieved.

All pending applications stand disposed of.

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge November 10, 2023 (reena) ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2023 20:32:35 :::CIS