Himachal Pradesh High Court
Pradeep Singh & Ors vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr on 13 May, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
1
2025:HHC:13791
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP Nos. 737, 727, 3777, 4043, 4096,
6313, 6431 & 16641 of 2024
Date of Decision: 13.05.2025
__________________________________________________________________________
1. CWP No. 737 of 2024
Pradeep Singh & Ors. .........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. .......Respondents
2. CWP No. 727 of 2024
Pratap Singh Ranaut & Ors. .........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. .......Respondents
3. CWP No. 3777 of 2024
Ajay Kumar & Ors. .........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. .......Respondents
4. CWP No. 4043 of 2024
Sunil Singh & Ors. .........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. .......Respondents
5. CWP No. 5096 of 2024
Vijay Parmar & Ors. .........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh .......Respondent
6. CWP No. 6313 of 2024
Sarita Sharma .........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. .......Respondents
7. CWP No. 6431 of 2024
Sunita Kumari Sharma .........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. .......Respondents
8. CWP No. 16641 of 2024
Narender Kumar .........Petitioner
Versus
2
2025:HHC:13791
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. .......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner(s): Mr. Onkar Jairath, Mr. Anshul Jairath & Mr.
Piyush Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) in
CWP Nos. 737, 727 & 16641 of 2024.
Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, with Mr.
Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners in
CWP No. 4043 of 2024.
Mr. K.S.Banyal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Uday
Singh Banyal, Advocate, for the petitioners in
CWP No. 5096 of 2024.
Mr. Abhinav Purohit, Mr. Saurabh Ahluwalia &
Mr. Digvijay Singh Thakur, Advocates, for the
petitioner(s) in CWP Nos. 3777, 6313 & 6431 of
2024.
For the respondent(s): Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan
Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma,
Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi
Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for
respondents-State.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Since common questions of facts are involved in all the above-
captioned cases, this Court heard them together and the same are now
being disposed of vide common judgment.
2. Though same and similar prayer has been sought by the
petitioners in these petitions, but for the sake of brevity, prayer made by
the petitioners in CWP No. 737 of 2024 is being reproduced hereinbelow:
2025:HHC:13791
"(i) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature
of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing and
setting aside the Impugned action of the Respondents, whereby the
Respondents have not convened the Proceedings of Departmental Promotion
Committee for promotion to the post of Principal (School Cadre), as a resultant
effect of which the Petitioners have been denied Regular Promotion to the post
of Principal (School Cadre) from the date they became eligible for promotion,
being patently illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional besides the same being
in violation to the settled law of the land.
(ii) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature
of mandamus directing the Respondents to convene the meeting of
Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the post of Principal
(School Cadre), as per the repeated instructions issued by the State
Government, and the Respondents be further directed to Promote the
petitioners from the date they became eligible for the same or in alternate
from the date the Petitioners have been granted the officiating charge of
Principal (School Cadre) as has been done with the Head Masters who have
been granted regular promotions from the date they were granted the
Officiating Charge on the post of Principal, along with all consequential
financial benefits.
3. Before the cases at hand could be heard and decided on their
own merit, learned Additional Advocate General has made available
communication dated 09.05.2025 issued under the signatures of Under
Secretary (Education), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, whereby
afore authority on the directions of Secretary (Education), Government of
Himachal Pradesh apprised the office of learned Advocate General that on
the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, the
2025:HHC:13791
Lecturer(s) School cadre and Headmasters, who were placed in the post of
Principal (School Cadre) w.e.f 2017 to 2023, have been promoted to the
post of Principal on regular basis. Respondents also annexed notification
dated 08.05.2025 issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh with the
aforesaid communication, perusal whereof reveals that petitioners herein
alongwith other similarly situate persons have been promoted to the post of
Principal (School Cadre) from the dates mentioned in the notification supra
on regular basis.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General states that on account of
aforesaid developments, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant
petitions.
5. Having perused aforesaid communication as well as
notification, which are taken on record, this Court is persuaded to agree
with the submission made by Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate
General.
6. Though at this stage, Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel for
the petitioners, attempted to argue that relief, as prayed for, has not been
granted complete in all respects because petitioners herein are actually
entitled to consequential benefits from the date, they assumed charge of the
2025:HHC:13791
post of Principal, but they have been granted such benefits on notional
basis.
7. However, having carefully perused averments contained in the
petitioner, especially relief clause vis-a-vis notification dated 08.05.2025,
this Court is not persuaded to agree Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel for
the petitioner. Precisely, the relief as has been granted in all the petitions is
with regard to grant of promotion to the post of Principal, which has been
granted, as far as entitlement of consequential benefits from the date
petitioners assumed charge against the post of Principal is concerned, this
Court sees no necessity to go into that question in the instant proceedings,
rather for that purpose, petitioners are always at liberty to file appropriate
proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if so advised.
8. Consequently, in view above, present petitions are disposed of
with liberty to the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy for redressal of
their surviving grievances, notwithstanding any observations made in the
instant judgment. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
May 13, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma),
(sunil) Judge
