IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 14979/2026 Decided on: 01.09.2026 Partap Singh …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. ……………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Ravi Tegta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Dikken Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs: - “(i). That Issue appropriate Writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to grant increment in pay scale annual increment seniority promotion, GPF as per CCS (pension) Rule 1972 date of appointment may be counted toward the above mentioned increment as per above mentioned judgment. (ii). That petitioner may be granted the increment as already granted by the respondent at the time of pay fixation during promotion in the year 2018, but stopped as per Director Elementary Education No. (CTE)-IV-(6)-U.S. (2020) EDN-H dated 20.01.2022, Para 3, the pay scale of JBT and HT are the same at 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 the stage of pay fixation. Hence, the benefit of FR 22(1)(a)(1) is not applicable, and the revised pay requires revision.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has filed a representation for the redressal of his aforesaid grievance. However, the said representation has not been appended with the instant writ petition. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied, in case he is permitted to make a fresh representation to the respondents/competent authority, whereafter, the said respondents/competent authority be directed to decide the representation to be made by him in accordance with law within a time-bound schedule. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to this prayer. In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondents/competent authority, within a period of two weeks from today for the redressal of his grievances, who shall in turn, consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, within a further period of six weeks. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 1st September, 2026(rohit)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 14979/2026 Decided on: 01.09.2026 Partap Singh …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. ……………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Ravi Tegta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Dikken Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs: - “(i). That Issue appropriate Writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to grant increment in pay scale annual increment seniority promotion, GPF as per CCS (pension) Rule 1972 date of appointment may be counted toward the above mentioned increment as per above mentioned judgment. (ii). That petitioner may be granted the increment as already granted by the respondent at the time of pay fixation during promotion in the year 2018, but stopped as per Director Elementary Education No. (CTE)-IV-(6)-U.S. (2020) EDN-H dated 20.01.2022, Para 3, the pay scale of JBT and HT are the same at 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 the stage of pay fixation. Hence, the benefit of FR 22(1)(a)(1) is not applicable, and the revised pay requires revision.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has filed a representation for the redressal of his aforesaid grievance. However, the said representation has not been appended with the instant writ petition. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied, in case he is permitted to make a fresh representation to the respondents/competent authority, whereafter, the said respondents/competent authority be directed to decide the representation to be made by him in accordance with law within a time-bound schedule. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to this prayer. In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondents/competent authority, within a period of two weeks from today for the redressal of his grievances, who shall in turn, consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, within a further period of six weeks. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 1st September, 2026(rohit)