IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.386 of 2026

Decided on: 7th January, 2026

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prakash Chand and others …..Petitioners

Versus

State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------f-------------------------------

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the Petitioners:

Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate

oGeneral.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JyotsnaC Rewal Dua, Judge

Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional

hAdvocate General, appears and waives service of notice on

gbehalf of the respondents.

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.

Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

3. Petitioners had preferred Prakash Chand & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others2 seeking applicability of Ranjit Singh and others Versus State

of Himachal Pradesh and others³. The writ petition was disposed of with directions to the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners in light of Ra njit Singh3 within the given time-frame. Pursuant thoereto, respondents passed the impugned office order on 14.10.2025 (Annexure P-5), rejecting the cases of the petitioners on the ground that same were not coveured by Ranjit Singh3 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 were, thus, held to be not covered under the decision rendered in Ranjit Singh3.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the cases of the petitioners and the reliefs prayed for Hby them have now been adjudicated upon in Surya Prabha and others Versus State of H.P. and others4. Operative portion of the said decision goes as under:-

“Petitioners were promoted as Head Teachers prior to 01.10.2012. Promotional increment attached to the post of Head Teacher cannot be denied to them merely on the ground that they had also been promoted

2 CWP No.10169 of 2025, decided on 25.06.2025

3 CWP No.2500 of 2021, decided alongwith connected matters on 07.07.2023

4 CWP No.5390 of 2024, decided on 28.05.2025

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 HPead 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 wrfit petition is allowed. The respondents are directeod 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 petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so ualso the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.”

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners would be satisfied in case the respo ndents 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 Prabha4 within a fixed-time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer.

5. In view of aforesaid as also keep