Disposed

Tara Chand and Others v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC15 Sept 2026CWP/15905/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging petitioner pay fixation. Holding the matter in abeyance pending internal representation, the court granted limited relief freezing any recovery during a reply period.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to move representation; restriction on recovery of the disputed amount pending decision on representation.

Tara Chand and Others Vs State of Hp and… — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.15905 of 2026 Decided on: 15^th September, 2026

¶3

Tara Chand and others …..Petitioners

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of H.P. and others

¶6

.....Respondents

¶7

Coram

¶8

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶10

For the Petitioners: Mr. Ajay Thakur, Advocate.

¶11

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

¶12

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶13

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

¶14

Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶15

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard at this stage without calling for the reply.

¶16

3. Petitioners feel aggrieved against their pay

¶17

fixation as carried out by the respondents under office order dated 04.05.2026 (Annexure P-4), wherein, their

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

basic pay as on 01.10.2025, has been depicted as Rs.30600/-. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that prior to petitioners’ pay fixation on 04.05.2026, their basic pay was much more than Rs.30600/-. That the respondents unilaterally without issuing any notice to the petitioners, have reduced their pay/pay scale. The salary slips of the petitioners as placed on record at Annexure P-5 (Colly.) give the impression that the petitioners were drawing the basic pay of Rs.35300/- in May, 2026, which was reduced to Rs.30600/- in June, 2026.

¶21

4. In the given facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to move an appropriate representation(s) on their aforesaid grievances to respondent No.3/competent authority within one week from today. In case such a representation(s) is so made, respondent No.3/competent authority shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law, inter alia , keeping in view petitioners’ previous pay fixation as also the principles of natural justice, within a period of four weeks thereafter. In the process of decision, an opportunity of hearing shall also be afforded to the petitioners. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners.

¶22

¶23

Till such decision, recovery, if any, pursuant to the impugned office orders dated 04.05.2026 and 27.03.2026 shall not be effected from the petitioners. It is, however, clarified that in case the petitioners do not prefer representation(s) within the period indicated above, the limited protection made available to them under this order shall cease to have any effect after one week.

¶24

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above

¶25

terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶26

September 15, 2026 Mukesh

¶27

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

Tara Chand and Others v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tara Chand and Others v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases