Disposed

Suresh Chand and Others v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC6 Nov 2023CWP/8515/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought promotional increments as Head Teachers with effect from 01.10.2012 relying on a previous judgment. The court permitted them to file a fresh representation to the Director of Elementary Education, expressly leaving the merits, facts, and questions of law open without adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to petitioners to make a fresh representation to the Respondent No.3 within two weeks.

Suresh Chand and Others Vs State of Hp and… — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.8515 of 2023 Decided on: 6^th November, 2023

¶3

___________________________________________________ Suresh Chand & ors. ....Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. ….Respondents

¶4

Coram

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

¶6

1 Whether approved for reporting?

¶7

For the petitioners : Mr. Gambhir Singh Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General.

¶8

Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral)

¶9

Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional

¶10

Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶11

2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners for the grant of following relief(s):-

¶12

“(i). That the respondents especially respondent no.2 & 3 may very kindly be directed to release/grant the benefit of promotional increments to the petitioners to the post of Head Teachers w.e.f. 01.10.2012, with all

¶13

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

¶14

¶15

consequential benefits, in a time bound manner, also as has been granted in CWP No.2500 of 2021 titled: Ranjit Singh and others V/S. State of H.P. and others a/w connected matter (Annexure P-1).”

¶16

3. Case of the petitioner, as submitted by the learned Counsel, is that the petitioners were promoted from the post of Junior Basic Teacher to the post of Head Teacher prior to 1.10.2012. He submits that the incumbents who were promoted as Head Master post on 1.10.2012 have been granted promotional increments under Fundamental Rule 22(1)(a)(i) of the Fundamental Rules. The further case of the petitioners is that the respondents has granted the promotional increments in terms of the Fundamental rules, referred to above, to persons who were promoted after 1.10.2012. The issue, as to whether the incumbents who were promoted as Head Teacher alike the petitioners herein before 01.10.2012 was entitled for the promotional increments. This issue 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.

¶17

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further

¶18

¶19

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 petitioners being similarly placed cannot be singled out and discriminated.

¶20

5. Per contra, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General submits that, in case, the petitioners make a representation either jointly or separately their case shall be examined in light of the aforesaid judgment.

¶21

6. That being so, and in view of the request, so made by the petitioners, this Court permits the petitioners to make a fresh representation either jointly or separately (in continuation of earlier representation(s), if made) to the Respondent No.3-Director of Elementary Education within two weeks from today; with further directions to the aforesaid respondent(s) to consider the fresh representation along with the representations dated 11.10.2023 and 14.10.2023, Annexure P-3 (colly), within four weeks thereafter.

¶22

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 .

¶23

¶24

In the aforesaid terms, the instant writ petition, as

¶25

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

¶26

also stand disposed of, accordingly.

¶27

Judge

¶28

November 06, 2023

¶29

(shivender)

Suresh Chand and Others v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Chand and Others v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Vs Hrtc and Others

Daleep Singh Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Savita Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Vinay Kumar Sharma Vs State of Hp and Others

Rajinder Singh Thakur Vs State of Hp and Others

Virender Kumar and Others Vs State of Hp and Others