Sh. Kamlesh Kumari And Others vs State Of H.P. & Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 17916 HP

         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

"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,

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

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)