Kamal Jit Sharma Vs State of Hp

The petitioners have laid challenge to the impugned order dated 26.07.2016 (Annexure A-1), whereby the pay of the petitioners, who were granted the pay band after their regularization as TGTs in the pay band of Rupees 10300-34800 + 3,600/- grade pay with initial start of Rupees 10830 +3600 and other allowances, as admissible from time to time, came to be reduced to the initial start of Rupees 10300-34800 + 3600 grade pay.

¶10

The facts, as emerge from the pleadings, are that the petitioners were appointed as TGTs on contract basis in the year

¶11

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

2

¶13

2008 on a fixed honorarium at the rate of Rupees 8,220/- per month in different schools, where they joined their services. In the year 2009, the respondents had revised the pay scale of the State Government employees w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and accordingly vide Notification dated 26.08.2009, the pay of category of the petitioners was revised to the pay band of Rs. 10300-34800 + 3600 grade pay. As per office order dated 22.06.2015 (Annexure A-3), the services of the petitioners were regularized on completion of 05 years services as on 31.03.2015 and they were granted the pay band of Rupees 10300-34800 plus grade pay 3600/- with initial start of Rupees 10830+3600 plus other allowances, as admissible from time to time with immediate effect. After regularization of their services, the petitioners were granted the pay of Rs. 14,430/-. However, later on respondent No.2 had passed the impugned order dated 26.07.2016, thereby fixing the pay of the petitioners at the initial start of Rs. 1030034800 + grade pay 3600/- plus other allowances, which came to Rupees 13,900/- plus other allowances. After the issuance of the said office order, the respondents started making recovery from the petitioners.

¶14

The respondents have filed reply to petition and averred that as per Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Category/Postwise Revised Pay) Rules, 2012, (for short ‘Rules, 2012’), the employees were to be allowed in the initial pay mentioned in column no. 8 under general conversion table of

¶15

3

¶16

schedule appended to Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 (for short ‘Rules, 2009’). The pay of Government servant appointed after 24.09.2012 is to be fixed under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Caregory/Postwise Revised Pay) Rules, 2012 with reference to the schedule attached to the 2012 pay Rules and not to the schedule attached to the 2009 pay Rules. As per Rules, 2012, the pay of the petitioners was to be fixed at the minimum of Pay Band plus grade pay, i.e. 10300+3600=13,900 instead of 10830+3600=14,430, being regular appointee on or after 24.09.2012. However, when it came to the notice that the petitioners had wrongly been given the benefit, directions were issued to pay them the initial start in the Pay Band of Rupees 10300-34800 plus grade pay Rs. 3600/i.e. 10300+3600=13,900/- instead of 10830+3600=14,430/-. The respondent-State had also directed all the field offices, vide letter dated 27.07.2016 to adjust the excess payment made in future enhancement. It is, therefore, averred that the order issued by the respondents-State is just, fair and legal as any mistake shall be rectified as and when it comes to the notice and shall not to be repeated.

¶17

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully.

¶18

It is not in dispute that when the regularization orders were passed on 22.06.2015, the petitioners were granted

¶19

4

¶20

the pay band of Rupees 10300-34800 plus grade pay 3600/- with initial start of Rupees 10830+3600/- plus other allowances as admissible to them from time to time with immediate effect. No doubt, the petitioners have been appointed after the Rules, 2012, but once the petitioners have been given the pay scale without any misrepresentation made by them, the impugned order is illegal. Not only this, the distinction, which is, now being drawn by the respondents, whereby the persons appointed before 24.9.2012 are to be paid the pay band of Rs. 10830+3600 i.e. Rs. 14,430, and the persons who were appointed after the said date, are being held liable to the pay band of Rupees 10,300 i.e. Rs. 13,900, is arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law. The similar notification had been challenged by the affected persons in CWPOA No. 8020 of 2019, titled Neena Puri and

¶21

others Vs. State of HP and others along with connected

¶22

matters. A Coordinate Bench of this Court had quashed the said order and the respondents were directed to re-fix the pay in the pay scale of Rupees 10300-34800 + grade pay of Rupees 3600 with initial start of Rs. 14,430 from the date of their respective regularization. Since the issue raised in the present petition has already been adjudicated by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforementioned petitions, the order under challenge, is also quashed and set aside. The relevant paras of the judgment passed in the aforementioned petition are reproduced hereinbelow:

¶23

5

¶24

“xx xx xx 11. In the above stated factual background, the question that needs determination is whether the impugned action of the respondents in marking distinction between the petitioners and those who were appointed before 24.09.2012 is arbitrary and hence discriminatory?

¶25

The above question stands already answered by Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 28.05.2025 passed in CWP No.2489 of 2018, titled State of H.P. vs. Suresh Chand Heer & others along with connected matters. In the said cases, the factual aspect was similar to the facts of the instant cases, save and except that the category of employees in the said cases was that of Post Graduate Teachers, whereas in the instant cases the petitioners belong to the category of Trained Graduate Teachers.

¶26

In the cases decided by Hon’ble Division Bench, the petitioners therein were placed in the pay band of Rs.1030034800 + Grade Pay of Rs.4200 with initial start of Rs.16290/-. On the same analogy as has been applied by the respondents in the instant cases, vide order dated 10.10.2016 the initial start of pay to the Post Graduate Teachers was reduced from Rs.16290/- to Rs. 14500/-. Hon’ble Division Bench while dealing with the same factual aspect has held as under:

¶27

“18. From the perusal of the Regularization Order dated 18.12.2014 (Annexure R-3), it would be clear that the appointments of the persons concerned were done by the Government in 2004 in different subjects under PARA Teacher Policy-2003 in Government Senior Secondary Schools in HP against the sanctioned posts. However, regularization of services of the said persons was done after they had completed 10 years of continuous service by the order passed on 18.12.2014, by the Director of Higher Education. Therefore, the fall back as such was upon Rule 5(ii) of the Revised Pay Rules that the appointment made on or after the commencement of the Rule was not justified by passing the order dated 10.10.2016 by the same Officer, namely, the Director of Higher Education, since the said persons were appointed much prior in the year 2004.

¶28

Apparently, the revision of pay was done on account of the instructions issued on 01.09.2015 (Annexure R-6) by the Finance Department of the Government. From the perusal of the same, it would be apparent that there was no amendment made in the Schedule as provided under Rule 9 of the Revised Pay Rules.

¶29

In the absence of any such amendment to the Schedule, we are of the considered opinion that the State was bound, firstly by the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and secondly, by the Pay Revision Rules and the Schedule appended thereto, apart from the fact that the employees as such had been appointed prior to the Regularization Order as such. Therefore, Clause 5(ii) of the Revised Pay Rules could not be used therein.

¶30

6

¶31

Further, the Hon’ble Division Bench also observed that though the learned State Administrative Tribunal had passed similar orders in favour of large number of incumbents, but the State had chosen only a few of them for challenge, whereas in the remaining cases the orders had been implemented. With the above observations, Hon’ble Division bench has ruled in favour of the Post Graduate Teachers and has refuted the defence raised by the respondents.

¶32

Thus, the petitioners herein being similarly situated to the Post Graduate Teachers in above noted cases as far as the proposition of law is concerned cannot be treated differently.

¶33

Learned Additional Advocate General while placing reliance in State of Punjab & others vs. Amar Nath Goyal & others, (2005) 6 SCC 754 has asserted that the grant of pay scale is the sole domain of the State Government for which one of the necessary factors is the financial condition of the State, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to compel the State to pay them a particular pay scale. The respondents have also placed reliance on communication dated 01.09.2015 issued by the Finance Department. The said communication also deals with wrong interpretation of Rule 5(ii) of 2012 Rules. The aspect of aforesaid communication has also been dealt with by Hon’ble Division Bench in Suresh Chand Heer (supra).

¶34

The proposition as propagated by learned Additional Advocate General cannot be disputed, however, the respondent- State is excepted from discriminating in the matters of public service between the similarly situated persons as it becomes antithetic to the right of equality enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶35

In light of above discussion, the impugned communication dated 26.07.2016 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to re-fix the pay of the petitioners in pay scale of Rs.10300-34800 + Grade Pay of Rs.3600 with initial start of Rs.14430/- from the date of their respective regularization. The respondents are further directed not to make any recovery from the petitioners in pursuance to communication dated 26.07.2016.”

¶36

Once this Court has already adjudicated the similar issue as stated above, the present petition deserves to be allowed. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.07.2016 (Annexure A-1) passed by respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to re-fix the pay of the petitioners in the pay scale of Rs. 10300-34800 + grade pay of Rs.3600 with initial start of Rs. 14,430/- from the date of their respective regularization. Further

¶37

7

¶38

the respondents are directed not to make any recovery from the petitioners in pursuance to communication dated 26.07.2016. In case the respondents have made any recovery from the petitioners, they are directed to refund the amount to the petitioners within three months from today. However, there shall be no orders as to cost. The petition is accordingly disposed of,

¶39

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶40

(Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) Judge

¶41

18^th May, 2026

¶42

(Guleria)

Kamal Jit Sharma v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Jit Sharma v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kali Dass Vs Hpseb Ltd.

Sita Ram Now Deceased through His Lrs Jagdish Chand and Ors. Vs Ram Rakha Now Deceased through His Lrs Chaudhary and Ors.

Sant Ram Vs Hpseb Ltd.

Tara Chand Vs Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Another

Vimal Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Valley Iron and Steel Company Ltd. Vs State of Hp and Ors.