Disposed¶15

Naresh Sharma and Others v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC16 Sept 2025CWP/14875/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

promotional increment; Head Teacher; JBT; FR 22 (1)(a)(1); Rule 11; R & P Rules dated 12.08.1987; representation dated 23.03.2025; Gopal Krishan; CWP No.5545/2022; judgment dated 26.06.2025; similarly situate; opportunity of hearing; speaking order; six weeks; State of Himachal Pradesh; disposed of with directions; Sandeep Sharma J.; Himachal Pradesh High Court.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' representation dated 23.03.2025 (Annexure P-10) in light of the judgment dated 26.06.2025 in CWP No.5545/2022 (Gopal Krishan), expeditiously, preferably within six weeks; similar benefits to be extended if the petitioners are found similarly situate; opportunity of hearing and speaking order; pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. ¶15

Naresh Sharma and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents may be directed to grant and release to the petitioners the benefits of promotional increment upon the post of Head Teacher, in view of FR 22 (1)(a)(1) and Rule 11 of the R & P Rules dated 12.08.1987, the said post carrying higher duties and responsibilities than the post of JBT. +2 more

¶8

Court's answer

The issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated in this Court's aforesaid judgment (CWP No.5545/2022, Gopal Krishan), and no prejudice would be caused to either party if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the petitioners' representation in light of that judgment.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' representation (Annexure P-10) in light of Gopal Krishan (supra), expeditiously, preferably within six weeks.

¶15

Key takeaways

In case the petitioners are found to be similarly situate to the petitioners in the aforesaid judgment, they would be extended similar benefits.ratio¶17
While doing the needful in terms of the order, the authority concerned shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass a speaking order thereupon.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service matter (CWP No.14875 of 2025, decided 16.09.2025, Sandeep Sharma J.): petitioners, serving upon the post of Head Teacher as against the post of JBT, sought grant and release of promotional-increment benefits under FR 22 (1)(a)(1) and Rule 11 of the R & P Rules dated 12.08.1987, and quashing of the impugned communication dated 20.04.2022 (Annexure P-6) and letter dated 25.06.2024 (Annexure P-8). Without calling for a reply, the Court found the issue already adjudicated in its judgment dated 26.06.2025 in CWP No.5545/2022 (Gopal Krishan Vs. State of H.P. and ors.) and disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' representation dated 23.03.2025 (Annexure P-10) in light of that judgment, expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, extending similar benefits if the petitioners are found similarly situate, after affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order; pending application(s) disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.14875 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.09.2025

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Naresh Sharma & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Naresh Kaul and Ms. Sheetal Kaul, Advocates.

¶4

For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

¶5

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶6

By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for the

¶7

following main reliefs:

¶8

“(i) That the respondents may be directed to grant and release the benefits of the promotional increment to the petitioners upon the post of Head Teacher, in view of FR 22 (1)(a)(1) and Rule 11 of the R & P Rules dated 12.08.1987 (Annexure P-1), which carries the higher duties & responsibilities than upon the post of JBT, in the interest of law and justice.

¶9

b) That a writ, order or direction may be issued and the impugned communication as contained in Annexure P-6 dated 20.04.2022 and the letter dated 25.06.2024 (Annexure P-8) may kindly be quashed, in the interest of law and justice.

¶10

(c) That during the pendency of the present writ petition the respondents may be directed to consider and decide the representation dated 23.03.2025 in the light of the judgment passed by this Hon’ble

¶11

¶12

Court in CWP No.5545/2022 titled as Gopal Krishan Vs. State of H.P. and ors. on 26.06.2025 (Annexure P-12), in the interest of law and justice.”

¶13

Before reply could be called for from the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioners states that his clients would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioners in light of judgment dated 26.06.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 5545/2022, titled as Gopal Krishan Vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. , in time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioners.

¶14

Having perused aforesaid judgment sought to be relied upon vis-à-vis issue raised in the petition at hand, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties in case respondents are directed to consider and decide representation of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid judgment.

¶15

Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioners (Annexure P-10) in light of Gopal Krishan (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within six weeks from

¶16

¶17

today. In case, petitioners are found to be similarly situate to the petitioners in the aforesaid judgment, they would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of the instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass speaking order thereupon. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶18

September 16, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge

Naresh Sharma and Others v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Sharma and Others v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirmala Devi and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Kamal Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Vinod Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Pooja Pundir Vs the State of Hp and Others

Desh Raj Vs the Cskhpkvv

Brahmi Devi Vs the State of Hp and Another