Himachal Pradesh High Court
Roshan Lal vs Himachal Road Transport Corporation on 1 April, 2025
( 2025:HHC:8538 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
CWPOA No. 1095 of 2020
along with CWPOA No. 1088
and 1197 of 2020.
Reserved on : 20th March, 2025.
Decided on : 1st April, 2025.
1. CWPOA No. 1095 of 2020.
Roshan Lal ...Petitioner.
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation ....Respondents.
2. CWPOA No. 1088 of 2020.
Som Lal ...Petitioner.
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation ....Respondents.
3. CWPOA No. 1197 of 2020.
Bharat Bhushan ...Petitioner.
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation ....Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate.
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 ( 2025:HHC:8538 )
Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
All these petitions have been heard and are being
decided together as common questions of facts and law are
involved.
2. Petitioners in CWPOA No. 1095 of 2020 and
CWPOA No. 1197 of 2020 are the retired Chief Inspectors
from respondent- Himachal Road Transport Corporation (for
short "Corporation"), who have retired w.e.f 30.10.2013 and
30.04.2015 respectively.
3. Petitioner in CWPOA No. 1088 of 2020 is the
retired Inspector of the corporation, who stood retired w.e.f.
30.06.2014.
4. The corporation revised pay scales of certain
categories of its employees vide office order dated
22.10.2011. The post of Chief Inspector was placed in the
pay scale of Rs.10300-34800+3800 Grade Pay. The category
of Inspector was left out and no revision in the pay scale of
such category was ordered.
5. The corporation on 24.10.2013 again revised the
pay scales of 28 categories of its employees and this time
neither the post of Chief Inspector nor of Inspector was
included.
3 ( 2025:HHC:8538 )
6. On 22.12.2015, an office order was issued by the
corporation whereby the pay scales of Inspectors and Chief
Inspectors were revised w.e.f. 01.08.2015. The Inspectors
were placed in the pay scale of Rs.10300-34800+3800 Grade
Pay and Chief Inspectors were placed in the pay scale of
Rs.10300-34800+4200 Grade Pay.
7. The petitioners in CWPOA Nos. 1095 of 2020 and
1097 of 2020 have raised grievance against the non inclusion
of their category in the pay revision order dated 24.10.2013
and also against the prospective operation of office order
dated 22.12.2015. The petitioner in CWPOA No.1088 of 2020
is aggrieved against non inclusion of his category in the pay
revision orders dated 22.11.2011 and 24.10.2013. In
addition, he has also shown grievance against prospective
operation of pay revision order dated 22.12.2015.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
have also gone through the entire record carefully.
9. Admittedly, the petitioners did not lay any
challenge to their non inclusion in the pay revision order
dated 24.10.2013 before their retirement. Similarly,
petitioner in CWPOA No. 1088/2020 had not taken any
exception to the pay revision order dated 22.10.2011.
4 ( 2025:HHC:8538 )
10. The grant of pay revision by an employer is the
subject within its administrative domain. The judicial review
of such administrative action is extremely restrictive. It can
be exercised only in those exceptional cases where the
administrative action is established to be arbitrary and
against the mandate of law.
11. The employee has no right to claim revision of pay
scale unless he establishes the violation of right of equality.
In the case in hand, in none of the petition, any factual
foundation has been laid to make out a case of arbitrariness
or discrimination.
12. The pay revision order dated 22.12.2015 has been
issued after the retirement of petitioners and its application
was made w.e.f. 01.08.2015. On such date, the petitioner
were not in the service of corporation and hence their claim
on the basis of said office order cannot sustain. Petitioners
also cannot seek the enforcement of said order from
retrospective date as they have not again been able to make
out a case of discrimination or arbitrariness. Equals have
been treated equally. The petitioner have also not placed on
record any material to show that the corporation has treated
any similarly situated persons differently.
5 ( 2025:HHC:8538 )
13. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance on a judgment passed by a coordinate bench
of this Court on 03.05.2023 in CWPOA No. 2507 of 2019,
titled as Nank Chand & Ors. vs. State of H.P. & Ors.,
and on its basis he has contended that in similar situation, the
benefit of pay revision was granted to the employees of
education department retrospectively.
14. After going through the judgment, I am of
considered view that petitioners cannot claim any benefit
from said judgment as the facts in both cases are quite
different. In Nank Chand's case (supra) vide notification
dated 27.09.2012, issued in exercise of powers under Rule 9
of the H.P. Civil Services (category/Post wise Revised Pay)
Rules, 2012, 19 categories/posts belonging to education
department were allowed pay revision w.e.f. 01.10.2012. The
said notification did not include the category/post of DPE.
Their inclusion in the aforesaid notification dated 27.09.2012
was made by subsequent order dated 01.11.2014 and DPEs
were allowed the benefit of pay revision prospectively w.e.f.
01.11.2014. While adjudicating the grievance of the DPEs,
the coordinate bench of this Cout has held that since the
category/post of DPEs was included in the same notification
dated 27.09.2012, they cannot be discriminated vis-a-vis the
6 ( 2025:HHC:8538 )
other beneficiaries of said notification. The facts of instant
case are different. Herein, the category of petitioners were
excluded from pay revision in the notifications issued from
time to time and the corporation had not included any
incumbent from the categories of Inspector and Chief
Inspector for the benefit of pay revision from back date. In
fact, the pay revision order dated 22.12.2015 came to be
issued much after the retirement of petitioners. The
operation of this notification was made prospective w.e.f.
01.08.2015 on which date all the petitioners already stood
retired.
15. In result, there is no merit in these petitions and
the same are accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if
any, also stand disposed of.
(Satyen Vaidya)
Judge
1st April, 2025.
(jai)
