Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Bhagat Ram on 4 October, 2024
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
( 2024:HHC:9711 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
LPA No. 315 of 2024
Date of decision: 4th October, 2024
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Appellant
Versus
Bhagat Ram ...Respondent.
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Appellant: Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Additional
Advocate General.
For the Respondent: Mr. Parv Sharma and Mr. Shekhar
Badola, Advocates.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral)
Parties to the list are being referred as per their status in
the Writ Petition for convenience.
2 Respondent/State has preferred this appeal against the
judgment dated 28th September, 2023 passed by learned Single Judge
in CWPOA No. 1007 of 2019 titled as Bhagat Ram & others vs. State
of HP alongwith other connected matters.
3 The claim of petitioners is that they were entitled for re-
revision of pay scale on the analogy of Clerks w.e.f. 1.10.2012 from
( 2024:HHC:9711 )
which date re-revision of pay scale of Clerks was notified by the
respondents/State.
4 After taking into consideration the material placed on
record and judgments referred in the impugned judgment, learned
Single Judge has held as under:-
"17. In view of above exposition of law, the defence
raised on behalf of the respondents that they have the
prerogative and right to classify various categories of its
employees for the purposes of grant of pay scales
requires to be upheld. Noticeably, in the fact of the
instant petitions, petitioners have not placed on record
any quantifiable data to suggest that by application of
requisite parameters, the post of Laboratory Attendant
was equivalent to the post of Clerk or Junior Technician
or any other category of employees for that matter.
18. Having observed as above, in my considered view,
the facts in the instant petitions are required to be looked
at from another perspective also.
19. Till the general revision of pay scales on 01.01.2006,
the pay scale allowed to the category of petitioners was
the same as granted to the Clerks and Junior
Technicians. The disparity arose when 2012 Rules were
enforced. Evidently, these rules have been framed in
exercise of powers vested in the State by virtue of
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
( 2024:HHC:9711 )
20. The 2012 Rules by themselves do not suggest, as to
what, was the purpose of such revision. Respondents in
their reply have submitted in general terms that it is their
prerogative to grant a particular pay scale to a particular
category of employees. The parameters on which the
exercise was undertaken to revise the pay scale vide
2012 Rules, have not been spelt out. There is no
explanation much less any plausible reason which had
weighed with respondents to deny revision of pay scale
to the category of petitioners on enforcement of 2012
Rules.
21. Notwithstanding all other aspect, it cannot remain
unnoticed that one of the important factors for revising
pay scale is the rise in price index. The assumption to
that effect will not be unfounded and unreasonable. That
being so, it is not understandable, as to how, an
exception has been carved in the case of Laboratory
Attendants.
22. This Court is not at all suggesting the revision of
pay scale in the case of petitioners at a particular rate,
however, the observations are being made on the
premise that in case the necessary exercise had not
been undertaken, the vulnerability of administrative
action to judicial review cannot be avoided.
23. In my considered view, interference is required by this
court to the limited extent by issuing suitable direction to
the respondents as under. These petitions are
accordingly disposed of with directions to the
( 2024:HHC:9711 )
respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioners for
suitable revision in their pay scale, keeping in view the
rise in price index, if such factor was applied as one of
the parameters while granting revision of pay scales to
other categories under 2012 Rules. The entire exercise
will be completed within eight weeks."
5 Present appeal has been preferred mainly on the
grounds that State has prerogative to determine and revise the pay of
its employees and therefore, learned Single Judge has committed an
error by passing the direction to respondent for re-consideration of the
revision of pay scale of petitioners.
6 The appeal appears to be totally misconceived for the
reason that learned Single Judge itself more particularly in para 17,
referred supra, has observed that petitioners have not placed on
record any quantifiable data to suggest that by application of requisite
parameters, the post of Laboratory Attendant was equivalent to the
post of Clerk or Junior Technician or any other category of employees
in the matter.
7 Learned Single Judge has also observed and rightly so
that it is not for the Court to suggest the revision of pay scale of
employees at a particular rate, however, for fixing the pay scale or
revision thereof, necessary exercise is required to be undertaken on
the reasonable and rational principles and absence of such exercise,
administrative action can be subject to judicial review.
( 2024:HHC:9711 )
8 Observation of learned Single Judge that there is no
explanation much less any plausible reason which had weighed with
respondents to deny the revision of pay scale to the category of
petitioners on enforcement of 2012 Rules, is based on record placed
before him.
9 The appeal is also liable to be dismissed for the reason
that learned Single Judge has not passed any direction to the
respondent Department to grant a particular pay scale, revision of pay
scale or revision thereof to the petitioners but a direction has been
issued to respondents to re-consider the case of petitioners for suitable
revision in their pay scale, keeping in view the rise in price index, if
such factor was applied as one of the parameters while granting
revision of pay scales to other categories under 2012 Rules.
10 Learned Single Judge has only directed to reconsider the
claim of petitioner on the basis of certain parameters, if such
parameter was basis for re-revision of others. Direction is to reconsider
the matter on the basis of reasonable and rational principles.
11 Therefore, we fail to understand that why instead of
reconsidering the matter on the basis of reasonable and rational
principles applicable for determining the pay scale/revision or revision
of pay scale, the State has unnecessarily preferred this appeal.
( 2024:HHC:9711 )
12 With aforesaid observations, we do not find any illegality,
irregularity or perversity in the judgment warranting interference of this
Court by invoking the jurisdiction of Letters Patent Appeal.
Accordingly, appeal is dismissed including all pending
miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
Judge.
4th October, 2024 (Ranjan Sharma),
(ms) Judge.
