Himachal Pradesh High Court
Bij Ram & Ors vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 1 January, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 10927 of 2023 Decided on: 01.01.2024 Bij Ram & Ors ........Petitioners Versus .
State of H.P. & Ors .......Respondents Coram HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN SHARMA, JUDGE WHETHER APPROVED FOR REPORTING?
For the petitioners : Mr. Naresh Kaul and Ms. Sheetal Kaul, Advocates.
of For the respondents : Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate General Ranjan Sharma, (Oral) rt Notice. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. With the consent of the parties, the instant writ petition, is taken up for disposal, at this stage, in view of the order(s) intended to be passed herein.
3. The petitioners, have claiming promotional increments on promotion from JBT to Head Teacher, under Fundamental Rule 22(I) (a) (i) and the higher pay fixation from the said due date(s) till day, have filed the instant writ petition, with the following relief(s):-
::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2024 20:32:39 :::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 10300-34800+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 @9% P.A. in view of the judgment dated 07.07.2023 passed in CWP No.2500/2021 titled as Ranjit Singh of and Others V/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors when the respondents vide orders dated 19.09.2023 & 21/22.09.2023 (Annexure P-2) rt have decided to implement the same, in the interest of justice.
ii) That a writ in nature of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation Annexure P-3 dated 12.11.2023 during the pendency of the writ petition, in the interest of law and justice."
4. Case of the petitioner(s), as submitted by the learned Counsel, is that the petitioners were promoted from the post of Junior Basic Teacher (JBT) to the post of Head Teacher prior to 1.10.2012 and though the JBTs who were promoted to the post of Head Teacher on or after 1.10.2012 have been granted the promotional increment(s) under Fundamental Rule 22(1)(a)(i) of the Fundamental Rules but this benefits ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2024 20:32:39 :::CIS 3 was denied arbitrarily to the petitioner(s). Learned Counsel submits that the issue, as to whether the incumbents who were promoted as Head Teacher alike .
the petitioners herein before 01.10.2012 were entitled for the promotional increments on the analogy of these incumbents who were promoted as Head Teacher(s) on or after 1.10.2012, and were even Juniors to the of petitioner(s) in service; stands decided by this Court, in CWP No.2500 of 2021, decided on 07.07.2023, rt titled as Ranjit Singh & Ors vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, Annexure P-3.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) further submits that the judgment in case of Ranjit Singh (Supra) stands implemented by the respondents on 20.09.2023, Annexure P-2. He further submits that the petitioner(s) being similarly placed cannot be singled out and discriminated, which has resulted in giving them less pay vis-à-vis their counterpart-Head Teachers who were promoted as Head Teacher and were junior to them in service. The denial of promotional increments from due date has resulted in ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2024 20:32:39 :::CIS 4 giving less pay to the petitioners since their promotion(s) as Head Teachers and even on revision of scale w.e.f. 1.1.2016 till day, which is a recurring loss .
whereas the junior Head Teachers promoted on or after 1.10.2012 were giving more pay, which was arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of Constitution of India.
of
6. Per contra, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General submits that, in case, the rt petitioner(s) make a representation giving all details;
the same case shall be examined in light of the judgment in case of Ranjit Singh (Supra).
7. Faced with this situation, and in view of the request so made by learned counsel for the petitioner(s), on instructions of the petitioner(s), this Court permits the petitioner(s) to make a fresh representation either separately or jointly to the Respondent No.3-Director of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh/Competent Authority, within two weeks from today, in continuation of representation dated 12.11.2023, (Annexure P-3); with further ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2024 20:32:39 :::CIS 5 directions to the aforesaid respondent to consider/decide the representation and to pass appropriate orders in the matter, within six weeks .
thereafter.
8. Needless to say that, this Court has not adverted to the merits of the matter and all questions of facts of law are left open.
of In the aforesaid terms, the instant writ petition, as rt well as, pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly.
(Ranjan Sharma) Judge 1st January, 2024 (himani) ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2024 20:32:39 :::CIS