Decided On: 20.11.2023 vs State Of H.P. & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 18127 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 9097 of 2023 Decided on: 20.11.2023 Kamal Kishore Dhiman & Ors

.

........Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. & Ors .......Respondents

Coram HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN SHARMA, JUDGE

WHETHER APPROVED FOR REPORTING?

For the petitioners : Ms. Sheetal Kaul and Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocates.

For the respondents : Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional r Advocate General for respondents

No.1 to 5.

Ranjan Sharma, (Oral)

Notice. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional

Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on

behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioners, have claiming promotional

increment 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):-

"a) 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.10,300-34800+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 and interest @ 9% per annum, in view of the judgment dated 7.7.2023 (Annexure P-1)

passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No.2500/2021 & connected matter, tilted as Ranjit Singh & Ors. vs. State of H.P. & Ors., r when the respondents vide orders dated

19.9.2023 & 21/22.09.2023 (Annexure P-2) have decided to implement the same, in the interest of law and justice.

b) That a writ in nature of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents to consider and

decide the representation Annexure P-3 dated 01.10.2023 during the pendency of the writ

petition, in the interest of law and justice."

3. 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 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 petitioner(s) in service; stands

decided by this Court, in CWP No.2500 of 2021, decided on

07.07.2023, titled as Ranjit Singh & Ors vs. State of

Himachal Pradesh & Ors, Annexure P-1.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) further

submits that the judgment in case of Ranjit Singh (Supra)

stands implemented by the respondents on 19.09.2023,

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 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.

5. Per contra, Mr. B.C. Verma, r learned Additional

Advocate General submits that, in case, the petitioner(s)

make a fresh representation giving all details; the same case

shall be examined in light of the judgment in case of Ranjit

Singh (Supra).

6. 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 within two weeks from today; with further

directions to the aforesaid respondent to consider the fresh

representation so made by the petitioner(s), including the

representations(s) dated 01.10.2023 (Annexure P-3, Colly) and

on consideration to pass appropriate orders in the matter,

.

within six weeks thereafter.

7. Needless to say that, this Court has not adverted

to the merits of the matter and all Questions of facts and law

are left open.

In the aforesaid terms, the instant writ petition, as

well as, pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall

also stand disposed of, accordingly.

(Ranjan Sharma)

Judge November 20, 2023 (himani)