The Court dismissed the writ petition on the application of the principle of non-substantiation, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim regarding promotional increments for Head Teachers promoted prior to October 1, 2012.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No.9783 of 2023 Decided on: 12th December, 2023
________________________________________________________ Mohinder Singh & ors. ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. ….Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1 Whether approved for reporting?
| For the petitioners | : Mr. |
Mohit | Dogra, | Advocate. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| For the respondents | : Mr. | B.C. | Verma, | Additional |
| Adv | ocate | General. |
Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral)
Notice. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional
Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.
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
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
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
instant writ petition, with the following relief(s):-
4. Case of the petitioners, 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
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 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 petitioners further submits that the judgment in case of Ranjit Singh ( supra ) stands implemented by the respondents vide communication dated on 19.09.2023 (Annexure P-2). He further submits that the petitioners 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. 6. Per contra, Mr. B.C. Verma, 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 (s upra ).
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.2-Director of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, within four weeks from today; with further directions to the aforesaid respondent to consider the fresh
representation(s) so made by the petitioner(s), and on consideration to pass appropriate orders in the
matter, within six weeks 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) December 12, 2023 Judge
(Shivender)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners promoted to Head Teacher before 01.10.2012 are entitled to promotional increments on the analogy of those promoted after that date.
Whether denial of promotional increments to petitioners is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Whether to permit respondent to consider fresh representation in light of existing judgment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ranjit Singh & Ors vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.Referred¶23
CWP No.2500 of 2021 Ranjit Singh & Ors vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. decided on 07.07.2023
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mohinder Singh
State of Himachal Pradesh
Ranjan Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
