Kalyan Singh & Ors vs State Of H.P. & Ors

Ranjan Sharma, J

Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2, 4 to 8 and respondent No.3 respectively.

The petitioners, have claiming promotional 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):-

“i) That the respondents especially respondent No. 1 to 3 may very kindly be release/grant the benefit of promotional increments to the petitioners, with al consequential benefits, in a time bound manner, also as has been granted in CWP No.2500 of 2021 titled as Ranjit Singh & others Versus State of H.P. & Others (Annexure P-1)”

Case of the petitioner(s), 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 1.10.2012 and though the JBTs who were promoted to the post of Head Teacher on or after 1.10.2012 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 1.10.2012, and were even Juniors to the petitioner(s) in service; stands decided by this Court, in CWP No.2500 of 2021, decided on 07.07.2023, titled as Ranjit Singh & Ors vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, Annexure P-1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) further submits that the judgment in case of Ranjit Singh (Supra) stands implemented by the respondents on 19.09.2023, Annexure P-2. He further submits that the petitioner(s) 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.

Per contra, Mr. Rajan Kahol, 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 (Supra).

Faced with this situation, and in view of the request so made by learned counsel for the petitioner(s), on instructions of the petitioner(s), this Court permits the petitioner(s) to make a fresh representation either separately or jointly to the Respondent No.4-Director of Elementary Education within two weeks from today; with further directions to the aforesaid respondent to consider the fresh representation so made by the petitioner(s), including the representations(s) dated 20.09.2023 (Annexure P-3, Colly) and on consideration to pass appropriate orders in the matter, within six weeks thereafter.

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.