JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, submits that the facts and reliefs prayed for in all the writ petitions, referred to above, is similar and, therefore, all these four writ petitions, may be taken up for disposal, at this stage, together. The prayer being innocuous, is not opposed by the learned State Counsel is granted. Accordingly, with the consent of parties, all these writ petitions are taken up for disposal, at this stage, together, in the interests of justice. 3. In order to facilitate the adjudication of the controversy involved in these writ petitions, the facts from CWP No.9109 of 2023, titled as Anil Kumar and others Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, are extracted, for ready reference and adjudication. 4. The petitioners, have come up before this Court, seeking the benefit of promotional increments, on promotion from JBT to Head Teacher, under Fundamental Rule 22(I) (a) (i) and the resultant higher pay fixation from the due date(s) till day, in all the above writ petition(s), with the following reliefs:- “(a) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioners in the pay band of Rs.10,300-34800+4400 grade pay with additional 3% promotional increment w.e.f. 01.10.2012, as has been done with the incumbents promoted to the post of Head Teacher after 01.10.2012, with all consequential benefits and interest @ 9% per annum, in view of the judgment dated 07.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No.2500/2021 & connected matter, titled as Ranjit Singh & Ors. Vs State of H.P. & Ors., when the respondents vide orders dated 19.9.2023 & 21/22.09.2023 (Annexure P-2) have decided to implement the same, in the interest of law and justice. (b) That a writ in nature of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation Annexure P-3 dated 15.10.2023 during the pendency of the writ petition, in the interest of law and justice.” 5. (b) That a writ in nature of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation Annexure P-3 dated 15.10.2023 during the pendency of the writ petition, in the interest of law and justice.” 5. Case of the petitioner(s), as submitted by the learned counsel, is that the petitioners were promoted from the post of Junior Basic Teacher (JBTs) to the post of Head Teachers (HTs) prior to 01.10.2012 and though the JBTs who were promoted to the post of Head Teacher(s) on or after 01.10.2012 have been granted the promotional increment(s) under Fundamental Rule 22 (1) (a) (i), but these benefits were denied arbitrarily to the petitioner(s). Learned Counsel submits that the issue, as to whether the incumbents who were promoted as Head Teacher(s) 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 01.10.2012, and were even Juniors to the petitioner(s) in service; stands decided by this Court, in C.W.P. No.2500 of 2021, titled as Ranjit Singh and others Versus State of H.P. and others alongwith connected matters, decided on 07.07.2023, Annexure P-1. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) further submits that the judgment in case of Ranjit Singh (supra) stands implemented by the respondents on 20.09.2023, 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 Teachers 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 pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2016 till day, which is a recurring loss, whereas the junior Head Teachers promoted on or after 01.10.2012 were giving more pay, which was arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of Constitution of India. 7. 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 shall be examined in light of the judgment in case of Ranjit Singh (supra). 8. 7. 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 shall be examined in light of the judgment in case of Ranjit Singh (supra). 8. 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.3-Director, Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, within two weeks from today; with further directions to the aforesaid respondent to consider/examine the fresh representation(s) so made by the petitioner(s), including the representation(s) dated 15.10.2023, 01.10.2023, 08.10.2023 and 15.10.2023 Annexure P-3, in all the writ petitions) and on consideration, in case the petitioners are found to be similarly situate to the petitioners in the aforesaid judgment, they would be extended similar benefits. 9. Needless to say, the aforesaid respondent shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and decide the representation(s) by a speaking order, within six weeks thereafter. 10. It is clarified that this Court, has not adverted to the rival contentions and merits of the matters and all Questions of facts and law are left open. In aforesaid terms, all the writ petitions as well as the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of, accordingly.