Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dalip Singh & Ors vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 29 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
CWP No.9465 of 2023
Decided on: 29th November, 2023
.
________________________________________________________
Dalip Singh & ors. ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. ....Respondents
Coram
of
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1 Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioners
rt : Mr. Surinder Prakash Sharma,
Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional
Advocate General, for
respondents No.1, 2, 4 to 7.
Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate, for
respondent No.3.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral)
Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional
Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice
on behalf of respondents No.1, 2, 4 to 7. Mr. Rangil
Singh, learned counsel, appears and waives service of
notice on behalf of respondent No.3.
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
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
of
instant writ petition, with the following relief(s):-
"(i).
rt That the respondents especially Respondent
No.1 to 3 may very kindly be directed to
release/grant the benefit of promotional
increments to the petitioners, with all
consequential benefits, within a time bound
manner, as has been granted in CWP No.2500 of
2021 titled as Ranjit Singh and others versus
State of H.P. and others alongwith connected
matter (Annexure P-1).
(ii). That the respondents may kindly be directed to
release the arrears of payment on account of
Gratuity, DCRG etc. of the retired persons in
terms of Judgment passed in Bhagat Ram's case
by this Hon'ble Court."
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 01.10.2012 and though the JBTs
who were promoted to the post of Head Teacher on or
.
after 01.10.2012 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
of
that the issue, as to whether the incumbents who were
promoted as Head Teacher alike the petitioners herein
rt
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 01.10.2012, and
were even Juniors to the petitioner(s) in service; stands
decided by this Court, in CWP No.2500 of 2021, titled
as Ranjit Singh & Ors vs. State of Himachal Pradesh &
Ors., decided on 07.07.2023 (Annexure P-1).
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) further
submits that the judgment in case of Ranjit Singh
(supra) stands implemented by the respondents vide
communication dated on 20.09.2023 [taken on record].
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
of
giving less pay to the petitioners since their promotion(s)
as Head Teachers and even on revision of scale w.e.f.
rt
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.
6. Per contra, Mr. Rajan Kahol, 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).
7. Faced with this situation, and in view of the
request so made by learned counsel for the petitioners,
on instructions of the petitioners, this Court permits the
petitioners to make a fresh representation either
.
separately or jointly to the Respondent No.4-Director of
Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, within two
weeks from today; with further directions to the aforesaid
respondent to consider the fresh representation(s) so
of
made by the petitioner(s), and on consideration to pass
appropriate orders in the matter, within six weeks
rt
thereafter.
8. 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)
November 29, 2023 Judge
(Shivender)
