Himachal Pradesh High Court
Vinod Kumar Sharma vs State Of H.P. And Others on 31 July, 2025
( 2025:HHC:25670 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWPOA No.7868 of 2019 along-with
connected matters
Decided on: 31st July, 2025
.
CWPOA No.7868 of 2019
Vinod Kumar Sharma .......Petitioner
versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
CWPOA No.7869 of 2019
Satya Kumari r .......Petitioner
versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
CWPOA No.7865 of 2019
Anil Kumar Sharma .......Petitioner
versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
Mangat Ram .......Petitioner
versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
Harish Kumar Gupta .......Petitioner
( 2025:HHC:25670 )
versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
Coram
.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner(s): Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel,
Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr.Seema Sharma, Deputy
Advocate General.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge(Oral)
All these petitions involve identical questions of
facts and law and thus are being disposed of by a common
order.
2. All the petitioners have retired from the post of
Registrar, Department of Forest, Government of Himachal
Pradesh. The common grievance of the petitioners is that
their pay-scale has been brought at par with the pay-scale
applicable to the post of Superintendent Grade-I, which is the
feeder category post for the promotional post of Registrar in
the Department.
3. The petitioners have exemplified the difference in
the pay-scale of the post of Registrar and that of the
Superintendent Grade-I right from 01.01.1978 till 01.01.2006
in the tabulated form as under:-
1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
( 2025:HHC:25670 )
Name of Pay scale granted w.e.f.
category
1.1.1978 1.1.1986 1.1.1996 1.1.2006
Registrar 1200- 2410- 7880- 10300-
1700 4000 11660 34800+GP5400
.
Supdt. Gr.I 825-1580 2200- 7220- 10300-
4000 11660 34800+5000
4. Thus, it is demonstrated that the pay-scales
applicable to the post of Registrar and Superintendent Grade-
I were different and in fact the pay-scale of Registrar was
always higher than the pay-scale available to the post of
Superintendent Grade-I.
5. to
It is also not in dispute that the post of
Superintendent Grade-I is feeder category post for the
promotional post of Registrar, as per Recruitment and
Promotion Rules.
6. By virtue of the enforcement of H.P. Civil Services
(Category/Post wise Revised Pay) Rules, 2012, the pay-scale
of the category of Superintendent Grade-I for Forest
Department was revised to Rs.15600-39100+5400 G.P.,
whereas, no revision of pay was granted to the category of
Registrars. In this manner, the category of Superintendent
Grade-I in Forest Department were granted higher pay than
the promotional post of Registrar which remained at the scale
of Rs.10300-34800+5400 G.P.
( 2025:HHC:25670 )
7. The petitioners represented against the injustice
meted out to them and as a result, the respondents granted
the same pay-scale to the post of Registrars in Forest
.
Department, which was granted to the category of
Superintendent Grade-I, in pursuance to the 2012 pay
revision Rules.
8. The respondents have contested the claim of
petitioners primarily on the ground that 2012 pay revision
Rules have superseded the previous Rules. It is also the case
of the respondents that after the enforcement of 2012 revised
pay Rules, it was proposed to grant the pay structure of
Rs.15600-39100+5400 G.P. to the post which was higher in
hierarchy to the post of Superintendent Grade-I or Section
Officer because by doing so, there would be no financial
burden on the State exchequer.
9. From the stand so taken by the respondents, one
thing is clear that no exercise appears to have been
undertaken in order to remove the anomaly that has crept in
by equating the pay-scale of feeder and promotional post. It
is more than settled that the feeder and promotional post
cannot have the same pay-scale. It being so, the case of the
petitioners is required to be considered by respondents No.1
( 2025:HHC:25670 )
and 2 in above context and to take a final decision thereafter,
more particularly, when the case of the petitioners had
already been recommended by the Administrative Department
.
vide communication dated 23.05.2016 from the Principal,
Chief Conservator of Forests, Himachal Pradesh to the
Additional Chief Secretary (Forest) to the Government of
Himachal Pradesh and no decision is stated to have been
taken on such recommendation till date.
10. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed of
with direction to respondents No.1 and 2 to consider the case
of the petitioners with a view to remove the anomaly which
has been created by placing the feeder category of
Superintendent Grade-I and promotional post of Registrar in
Forest Department in the same pay-scale w.e.f. 01.12.2013.
The entire exercise shall be completed within two months in
terms of this judgment.
16. The petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid
terms, so also the pending applications, if any.
July 31, 2025 ( Satyen Vaidya )
(naveen) Judge
