Himachal Pradesh High Court
Neena Puri & Others vs State Of H.P. & Others on 24 June, 2025
2025:HHC:19458
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWPOA No.8020 of 2019 a/w
connected matters
Reserved on: 16.06.2025
Date of Decision: 24.06.2025
1. CWPOA No.8020 of 2019
Neena Puri & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents
2. CWPOA No.8028 of 2019
Mukesh & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents
3. CWPOA No.8119 of 2019
Kamaljeet Kaur ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents
4. CWPOA No.8124 of 2019
Parveen Kumari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents
5. CWPOA No.8127 of 2019
Tara Rani & another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents
Manju Bala & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents
Abhimanyu & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & another ...Respondents
Rajeev Kumar & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents
Joginder Lal & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents
Monika Kumari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents
Rajeev Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents
Rajesh Kapoor ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents
Dharmender Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents
Manender Singh & another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents
Manjula Kumari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents
Anupma Thakur & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents
Rajesh Kumar & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents
Shiv Dev Singh & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents
Manjeet Goswami ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents
Sumedha Thakur ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents
Ajay Anand ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents
Abhiraj Mandotra & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents
Anjali Bhardwaj ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
For the petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Mr. Ashwani Kaundal,
Mr. Mohit Thkaur, Mr. Narender Thaiur,
Mr. Vikas Rajput, Mr. Rajeev Sharma,
Mr. Praveen Chandel, Advocates, for the
respective petitioners.
For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional
Advocate General.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge
All these petitions have been heard and are being
decided together as common questions of facts and law have
arisen.
2. The petitioners were initially appointed as Trained
Graduate Teachers (TGTs) on contract basis. Later, their services
were regularized as TGTs under the regularization policy of the
State Government.
3. It is not in dispute that the date of initial appointment
of the petitioners on contract basis was prior to 24.09.2012, when
the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Category/Post Wise
Revised Pay) Rules 2012 (for short, "2012 Rules") were notified.
The orders of their regularization of petitioners were issued after
coming into force of said Rules.
4. As a sequel to 2012 Rules, notification dated
27.09.2012 was issued and the category of TGTs was also
included in the Schedule annexed to the said Rules. The TGTs
were placed in the pay band of Rs.10300-34800 with 3600 as
Grade Pay with the initial start of Rs.14430. Further enhancement
of Grade Pay to Rs.5000/- was made applicable after two years of
regular service.
5. The petitioners on regularization as TGTs were
granted the pay scale of Rs.10300-34800+Grade Pay Rs.3600
with initial start of Rs.10830+3600=Rs.14430.
6. Respondent No.2 vide communication dated
26.07.2016 issued to all the Deputy Directors of Elementary
Education and the Principals/Headmasters of GSSS/GHS in the
State directed to re-fix the pay of those TGTs who were
regularized after 24.09.2012 by granting initial start of Rs.13900/-
in place of Rs.14430/- and also to seek recoveries from such
incumbents of excess amount paid to them.
6. Aggrieved against the communication dated
26.07.2016, the petitioners have filed the instant petitions. Their
grievance is that they had been rendering contract service prior to
24.09.2012 and hence their category could not be said to have
been freshly appointed after 24.09.2012 merely because the date
of their regularization was after the enforcement of 2012 Rules. It
is also the case of the petitioners that the category of TGTs was
included in the Schedule annexed to 2012 Rules w.e.f.
27.09.2012 and as per the Schedule also they were entitled to the
pay band of Rs.10300-34800 + Grade Pay of Rs.3600 with initial
start of Rs.14430/-. The petitioners have contended that the
Schedule was neither changed or amended, therefore, the
reduction of initial start from Rs.14430/- to Rs.13900/- vide
communication dated 26.07.2016 (Annexure A-1) was clearly
discriminatory. According to them, no distinction could be drawn
by the respondents between the TGTs appointed before
24.09.2012 and the petitioners, who had been rendering the
same service though on contract basis prior to 24.09.2012.
7. The respondents have contested the claim of the
petitioners. They have placed reliance on Finance Department
letter dated 01.09.2015 to assert that the incumbents, who were
appointed after 24.09.2012, were not entitled to the benefit of
initial start of Rs.14430/- in terms of Rule 5(ii) of 2012 Rules. It
has been contended that the pay of the petitioners was to be fixed
at the minimum of the pay band + Grade Pay i.e.
Rs.10300+3600=Rs.13900 instead of Rs.10830+3600=
Rs.14430/- because they were regularized after 24.09.2012. It
has also been asserted that the grant of pay scales is in the
domain of State Government.
8. On 17.12.20224, this Court had passed the following
order:
"Heard for some time.
2. Admittedly, under Article 309 of the
Constitution of India, the Finance [Pay Revision]
Department of State Government notified
Himachal Pradesh Civil Services [Category/Post-
Wise Revised Pay] Rules on 24.09.2012 and
based on Rule 3 and Rule 9 of these Rules, the
Finance [Pay Revision] Department issued another
Notification on 27.09.2012, Annexure A/4, given
the initial start of Rs.14,430/- [against Sr. No.10] to
Trained Graduate Teachers.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contend
that after issuance of Himachal Pradesh Civil
Services [Category/Post-Wise Revised Pay] Rules,
on 24.09.2012 and Schedule notified for TGTs on
27.09.2012, Annexure A/4, though the petitioners
were regularized on different dates in 2014 and
2015 onwards but the Impugned Order dated
26.07.2016, Annexure A/1, giving the initial start at
Rs.13,900/- per month to the Trained Graduate
Teachers dehors the Rules dated 24.09.2012 and
Schedule dated 27.09.2012, which entitle the
petitioners for initial pay of Rs.14430/- is illegal.
4. The Impugned Order dated 26.07.2016,
Annexure A-1, is assailed firstly on the ground
being dehors the Rules and Schedule;, secondly,
once the Schedule to Rules notified on
27.09.2012, prescribing Basic Pay of Rs.14,430/-
for TGTs still holds the field and has not been
rescinded, withdrawn or modified, then, the grant
of lower basic pay/initial start of Rs.13,900/- was
alleged to be illegal and thirdly, administrative
decision or order cannot restrict the operation and
applicability of Statutory Rules; and fourthly, the
action of changing the nomenclature of initial pay
from Rs.14,430/- to Rs.13,900/- dehors the
mandate in Rules and Schedule but without
affording the opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners, is per se violative of natural justice;
and lastly, the denial of initial start of Rs.14,430/-
as given to other TGTs is discriminatory, arbitrary
and hostile discrimination, when, petitioners and
other appointed incumbents perform same work,
job, duties and functions.
5. Learned Faced with the above situation, as
prayed, State Counsel to file Supplementary
Affidavit, on following aspects:-
(i) Whether Civil the Himachal Services
Pradesh [Category/Post-Wise Revised
Pay] Rules dated 24.09.2012 still holds
the field or has been rescinded,
withdrawn by the respondents?
(ii) Why and on what grounds the
Schedule notified on 27.09.2012, is not
applicable, in case, of petitioners?"
9. In compliance, the affidavits have been filed in
CWPOA No.6703 of 2020, titled Manjeet Goswami vs. State of
H.P. & others and CWPOA No.6820 of 2020, titled Sumedha
Thakur vs. State of H.P. & others. In the supplementary affidavit
of the Director, Primary School Education, Himachal Pradesh,
nothing new has been stated. The relevant extract of the affidavit
is reproduced as under:
"3. That in reply to the point no. 2, it is
submitted that the schedule notified on 27-09-
2012 is not applicable to the petitioners in view of
the provision contained in HPCS (Category / post-
wise revised pay) Rules dated 24-09-2012 and
subsequently clarification issued by the
Department of Finance (PR) vide letter No. Fin
(PR)B (7) 64/2010-III, dated 1-9-2015 at point 5
(ii) indicated that "In case of Government servant
appointed on or after the date of commencement
of these rules, the pay will be fixed at minimum of
pay band plus grade pay as mentioned in the
"Schedule" against the respective category/post"."
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
have perused the record carefully.
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?
12. 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.
13. In the cases decided by Hon'ble Division Bench, the
petitioners therein were placed in the pay band of Rs.10300-
34800 + 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:
"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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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).
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of along
with pending application(s), if any.
( Satyen Vaidya )
Judge
June 24, 2025
(vt)
