JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Notice. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy 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 orders, intended to be passed herein.

3. The petitioner has filed the writ petition with the following prayers:-

“(i) That in view of the submissions made in the writ petition, the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the respondent No. 2 may kindly be directed to refix the pay of petitioner as per law to the higher scale than lastly drawn prior to promotion as Headmaster with all consequential benefits.

(ii) That the respondent may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the direction passed by the Hon’ble Court vide Judgment dated 07.07.2022 in CWP No.842 of 2017, titled as “State of H.P. and Others versus Sardari Lal and Another”.

4. The case of the petitioner is that on promotion as Headmaster, the pay of the petitioner was required to be fixed by giving the admissible increments under Fundamental Rule 22(I)(a)(i), over and above the pay being drawn by him as Lecturer School Cadre. Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, learned Counsel, submits that though the respondents have granted the promotional increments over and above the pay drawn as Lecturer but this benefit was withdrawn, leading to reduction in basic pay and recovery.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in TA No. 6029 of 2015, titled as Sardari Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, whereby, the orders of reducing the basis pay and in ordering/affecting recovery, were quashed and set aside. The order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal on 27.04.2016 (Annexure P-1) was assailed by the State Government in CWP No. 842 of 2017, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & others vs. Sardari Lal & another alongwith other connected cases, whereby, the appeal filed by the State Authorities was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 07.07.2022. Thereafter, though the respondents were bound to restore the admissible promotional increments, under FR 22(I)(a)(i) to the petitioner, on promotion as Headmaster over and above the pay drawn by the petitioner as Lecturer (School Cadre) and also to refund the amount recovered [i.e. the pay admissible as Headmaster, by givig admissible increments under FR 22(I) (a)(i) over and above the pay of Lecturer (School Cadre), vis-a-vis the pay erroneously fixed by giving admissible increments under FR 22(I)(a)(i) over and above the presumptive pay as TGT] but the denial of restoration of higher pay as Headmaster has resulted in financial loss since 3.9.2008 as Headmaster and then on next higher post of Principal (School Cadre) till his superannuation on 31.05.2021 in the applicable scales and then the right to receive higher pension w.e.f. 1.06.2021 in the revised rates till day, which is a recurring loss till day.

6. In this background, case of the petitioner is that petitioner has made representation to Deputy Director of Higher Education, Bilaspur on 13.04.2023 (Annexure P-2).

7. Mr. K.B. Khajuria, learned Counsel for the petitioner, fairly submitted that in response to the judgment passed by the State Administrative Tribunal and judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court, in case of Sardari Lal (supra), the Deputy Director of Higher Education, Bilaspur, has recommended the case of the petitioner to the Respondent No. 2–Director of Higher Education on 15.06.2023 [copy taken on record] for refixing the pay of the petitioner

8. Per contra, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that once the petitioner has made a representation on 13.04.2023 (Annexure P-2), which is pending, therefore, in view of the communication dated 15.06.2023 [taken on record], the case of the petitioner needs to be looked into/examined by the departmental agencies