IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.827 of 2026

Date of Decision: 09.01.2026

_____________________________________________________________________ Sh. Ranjeet Singh Guleria & Ors. ……...Petitioners

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, fJudge.

Whether approved for reporting?o

For the Petitioner: Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Advocate.

For the respondents:Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar,

Adrditional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi

Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

___________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharm o a, J. (Oral)

Notice. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate

General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the

rhespondents.

2. In view of the nature of order impugned herein, the pleadings, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the order being passed hereinafter, reply to the writ petition is not required to be called for from the respondents. With the consent of

learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage.

3. Petitioners had preferred CWP No.10171 of 2025, titled as and others seeking applicability of CWP No.2500 of 2021, titled as

respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners in light of Ranjit Singh (supra) within the given time-frame. Pursuant thereto, respondents passed the impugned office order on 16.10.2025 (Annexure P-5), rejecting the cases of the petitioners on the ground that same were not covered by Ranjit Singh (supra) as the petitioners had been promoted as Head Teachers before 01.10.2012 and subsequently also promoted as Centre Head Teachers before 01.10.2012. The petitioners wtere, thus, held to be not covered under the decision rendered in Ranjit Singh (supra).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the cases of the petitioners and the reliefs prayed for by them have now been adjudicated upon in CWP No.5390 of 2024, titled as Surya Prabha and others Versus State of H.P. and others. Operative portion of the said decision goes as under:-

“Petitioners were promoted as Head Teachers prior to 01.10.2012.

i Promotional increment attached to the post of Head Teacher cannot be denied to them merely on the ground that they had also been promoted as Centre Head Teachers before 01.10.2012. Petitioners’ subsequent promotion as Centre Head Teacher will not take away their right attached to and flowing from their promotion as Head Teachers. Petitioners might have been promoted as Centre Head Teachers prior to 01.10.2012, but the promotional increment due to them on their promotion as Head Teacher has to be allowed to them w.e.f. 01.10.2012, i.e. the date from which it was released to all Head Teachers in service, irrespective of their dates of promotion as such.

5. In view of above, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to the extend the benefits of the decision in Ranjit Singh2 to the petitioners by passing consequent necessary and appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioners. The writ pet.ition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.”

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners would be satisfied in case th e respondents are directed to consider their respective cases for grant of promotional increments attached to the post of Head Teacher afresh in accordance with law keeping in view Surya Prabha (supra) within a fixed-time schedule.

Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer.

5. In view of aforesaid as also keeping in view the decision in Surya Prabha (supra), the impugned office order dated 16.10.2025 (Annexure P-5) is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider and decide the respective cases of the petitioners afresh in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in Surya Prabh