Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P. And Another vs Roshan Lal Khajuria & Another on 22 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
LPA No.109 of 2024 a/w connected matters.
Date of Decision:- 22.05.2025
1. LPA No.109 of 2024.
State of H.P. and another ....Appellants
Versus
Roshan Lal Khajuria & another ....Respondents
2. LPA No.322 of 2024.
State of H.P. and Others ....Appellants
Versus
Venna Kumari ....Respondent
3. LPA No.323 of 2024.
State of H.P. and another ....Appellants
Versus
Ashok Kumar ....Respondent
4. LPA No.336 of 2024.
HPSEBL ....Appellant
Versus
Raj Kumar Sharma ....Respondent
5. LPA No.349 of 2024.
HPSEBL ....Appellant
Versus
Satish Kumar Dhiman ....Respondent
6. LPA No.357 of 2024.
State of H.P. & Another ....Appellants
Versus
Anita Gupta ....Respondent
7. LPA No.372 of 2024.
HPSEBL ....Appellant
Versus
Sher Singh ....Respondent
8. LPA No.374 of 2024.
HPSEBL ....Appellant
Versus
Balwan Singh ....Respondent
9. LPA No.384 of 2024.
State of H.P. & Others ....Appellants
Versus
Balbir Singh Barwal ....Respondent
10. LPA No.386 of 2024.
State of H.P. & others ....Appellants
Versus
HP Secreteriat & Other Affiliated ....Respondent
Pensioners Welfare Association
11. LPA No.400 of 2024.
State of H.P. & another ....Appellants
Versus
Kusum Aggarwal ....Respondent
12. LPA No.439 of 2024.
State of H.P. & another ....Appellants
Versus
Santosh Mongra ....Respondent
13. LPA No.462 of 2024.
State of H.P. & others ....Appellants
Versus
Rattani Devi ....Respondent
14. LPA No.486 of 2024.
State of H.P. & others ....Appellants
Versus
Renu Kumari & another ....Respondents
15. LPA No.77 of 2025.
State of H.P. & others ....Appellants
Versus
Subhash Chand ....Respondent
16. LPA No.137 of 2025.
State of H.P. & others ....Appellants
Versus
Raj Kumar ....Respondent
17. LPA No.141 of 2025.
State of H.P. & others ....Appellants
Versus
Jeet Ram ....Respondent
18. LPA No.142 of 2025.
HPSEBL ....Appellant
Versus
Chaman Lal ....Respondent
19. LPA No.143 of 2025.
State of H.P. & others ....Appellants
Versus
Ravi Kant Kaushal ....Respondent
20. LPA No.144 of 2025.
HPSEBL ....Appellant
Versus
Pushaphas Kumar Sharma ....Respondent
21. LPA No.145 of 2025.
State of H.P. & others ....Appellants
Versus
Suresh Kumar Gupta ....Respondent
22. LPA No.147 of 2025.
State of H.P. & Others ....Appellants
Versus
Beena Sharma ....Respondent
23. LPA No.149 of 2025.
State of H.P. & others ....Appellants
Versus
Gaitri Devi ....Respondent
24. LPA No.151 of 2025.
State of H.P. & others ....Appellants
Versus
Rameshwari Devi ....Respondent
25. LPA No.152 of 2025.
H.P. Vidhan Sabha ....Appellant
Versus
Sunder Lal Negi & others ....Respondent
26. LPA No.154 of 2025.
State of H.P. & others ....Appellants
Versus
Satya Vrata Sharma ....Respondent
27. LPA No.155 of 2025.
HPSEBL ....Appellant
Versus
Gian Chand Bhatt ....Respondent
28. LPA No.156 of 2025.
State of H.P. & others ....Appellants
Versus
Manorma Devi ....Respondent
29. LPA No.157 of 2025.
State of H.P. & others ....Appellants
Versus
Dr. Sunil Kumar Chandel & others ....Respondents
30. LPA No.159 of 2025.
State of H.P. & others ....Appellants
Versus
Hari Singh Thakur ....Respondent
31. LPA No.160 of 2025.
State of H.P. & others ....Appellants
Versus
Satish Kaul ....Respondent
32. LPA No.163 of 2025.
State of H.P. & others ....Appellants
Versus
Surjeet Singh ....Respondent
33. LPA No.164 of 2025.
HPSEBL ....Appellant
Versus
Deepak Uppal ....Respondent
34. LPA No.165 of 2025.
Sate of H.P. & others ....Appellants
Versus
Nanda Ram ....Respondent
35. LPA No.244 of 2025.
Sate of H.P. & others ....Appellants
Versus
Surya Prakash ....Respondent
36. LPA No.245 of 2025.
Sate of H.P. & another ....Appellants
Versus
Neelam Saini ....Respondent
37. LPA No.246 of 2025.
Sate of H.P. & others ....Appellants
Versus
Surender Kumar Thakur & others ....Respondents
38. LPA No.247 of 2025.
Sate of H.P. & others ....Appellants
Versus
Dr. Kanwarjeet Singh Malhotra ....Respondent
39. LPA No.248 of 2025.
Sate of H.P. & others ....Appellants
Versus
Naresh Kumar Gupta ....Respondent
40. LPA No.249 of 2025.
Sate of H.P. & others ....Appellants
Versus
Bali Ram ....Respondent
41. LPA No.250 of 2025.
Sate of H.P. & another ....Appellants
Versus
Lotus Kumari ....Respondent
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Mr. Pranay
Pratap Singh, Mr. Gobind Korla,
Additional Advocate Generals,
Ms. Priyanka Chauhan and
Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy
Advocate General, for
appellants/State in LPA Nos.109,
322, 323, 357, 384, 386, 400, 439,
426, 486 of 2024, 77, 137, 141,
143, 145, 147, 149, 151, 154, 156,
157, 159, 160, 163, 165, 244, 245,
246, 247, 248, 249 and 250 of
2025.
Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Dhananjay
Sharma, Advocate, for the
appellants in LPA No.336, 349,
372, 374 of 2024, 142, 144, 155
and 164 of 2025.
Mr. K.S. Banyal, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Uday Singh Banyal,
Advocate, for the appellant in LPA
No.152 of 2025.
For the Respondents : Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Mr. Aditya
Kaushal, Mr. Prakash Sharma,
Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Mr.
Bhupinder Thakur, Mr. Sanjay
Gandhi, Mr. OnkarJairath,
Mr. Mandeep Chandel
Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Advocate,
for respondent No.1-H.P.
Secreteriat in LPA No.386 of 2024
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
and Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate,
for respondent No.2-HPPSC.
Mr. Tek Ram Sharma and
Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocates, for
respondent/Accountant General.
G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral).
The present Letters Patent Appeals are being
disposed of by a common order and all Miscellaneous
Application for condonation of delay are being allowed, which are
necessitated, for the reasons which will come in the order itself.
If the applications are not allowed, it will lead to an ambiguous
situation, where certain set of persons would be getting the
benefit, whereas in the other set matter is yet to be decided, on
account of the order we propose to pass.
2. The present Letters Patent Appeals have arisen
against the order(s) passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP
No.6952 of 2023 decided on 27.09.2023 out of LPA No.109 of
2024 arises, CWP No.5962 of 2023 decided on 21.05.2024 out of
LPA No.322 of 2024 arises, CWP No.10959 of 2023 decided on
21.05.2025 out of LPA No.323 of 2024 arises, CWP No.8101 of
2023 decided on 20.10.2023 out of LPA No.336 of 2024 arises,
CWP No.7927 of 2023 decided on 19.10.2023 out of LPA No.349
of 2024 arises, CWP No.8106 of 2023 decided on 30.10.2023 out
of LPA No.357 of 2024 arises, CWP No.8256 of 2023 decided on
31.10.2023 out of LPA No.372 of 2024 arises, CWP No.3424 of
2024 decided on 29.04.2024 out of LPA No.374 of 2024 arises,
CWP No.7645 of 2023 decided on 13.10.2023 out of LPA No.384
of 2024 arises, CWP No.7376 of 2023 decided on 22.03.2024 out
of LPA No.386 of 2024 arises, CWP No.8090 of 2023 decided on
20.10.2023 out of LPA No.400 of 2024 arises, CWP No.8104 of
2023 decided on 20.10.2023 out of LPA No.439 of 2024 arises,
CWP No.5920 of 2023 decided on 21.05.2024 out of LPA No.462
of 2024 arises, CWP No.9461 of 2023 decided on 21.05.2024 out
of LPA No.486 of 2024 arises, CWP No.6283 of 2023 decided on
21.05.2024 out of LPA No.77 of 2025 arises, CWP No.7650 of
2023 decided on 13.10.2023 out of LPA No.137 of 2025 arises,
CWP No.4382 of 2024 decided on 21.05.2024 out of LPA No.141
of 2025 arises, CWP No.8059 of 2023 decided on 20.10.2023 out
of LPA No.142 of 2025 arises, CWP No.5453 of 2023 decided on
21.05.2024 out of LPA No.143 of 2025 arises, CWP No.8040 of
2023 decided on 20.10.2023 out of LPA No.144 of 2025 arises,
CWP No.8508 of 2023 decided on 26.03.2024 out of LPA No.145
of 2025 arises, CWP No.5990 of 2023 decided on 21.05.2024 out
of LPA No.147 of 2025 arises, CWP No.6284 of 2023 decided on
21.05.2024 out of LPA No.149 of 2025 arises, CWP No.6282 of
2023 decided on 21.05.2024 out of LPA No.151 of 2025 arises,
CWP No.7089 of 2023 decided on 29.09.2023 out of LPA No.152
of 2025 arises, CWP No.7644 of 2023 decided on 13.10.2023 out
of LPA No.154 of 2025 arises, CWP No.7897 of 2023 decided on
18.10.2023 out of LPA No.155 of 2025 arises, CWP No.6023 of
2023 decided on 21.05.2024 out of LPA No.156 of 2025 arises,
CWP No.5651 of 2023 decided on 26.09.2023 out of LPA No.157
of 2025 arises, CWP No.7731 of 2023 decided on 13.10.2023 out
of LPA No.159 of 2025 arises, CWP No.7646 of 2023 decided on
13.10.2023 out of LPA No.160 of 2025 arises, CWP No.7341 of
2023 decided on 06.10.2023 out of LPA No.163 of 2025 arises,
CWP No.7867 of 2023 decided on 18.10.2023 out of LPA No.164
of 2025 arises, CWP No.7335 of 2023 decided on 05.10.2023 out
of LPA No.165 of 2025 arises, CWP No.8776 of 2023 decided on
12.03.2024 out of LPA No.244 of 2025 arises, CWP No.7394 of
2023 decided on 28.05.2024 out of LPA No.245 of 2025 arises,
CWP No.6340 of 2023 decided on 21.05.2024 out of LPA No.246
of 2025 arises, CWP No.2676 of 2024 decided on 01.04.2024 out
of LPA No.247 of 2025 arises, CWP No.7815 of 2023 decided on
17.10.2023 out of LPA No.248 of 2025 arises, CWP No.4466 of
2024 decided on 22.05.2024 out of LPA No.249 of 2025 arises,
CWP No.7392 of 2023 decided on 28.05.2024 out of LPA No.250
of 2025 arises respectively.
3. It is to be noticed that the issue in question was with
regard to the benefit of the revised pay Rules of the Himachal
Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022, which were
deemed to come into force w.e.f. 01.01.2016, as per the
notification dated 03.01.2022, which were pertaining to the
serving employees. Similar benefits were also accorded to the
persons who had retired after 01.01.2016, vide notification dated
25.02.2022. The initial parent notification dated 03.01.2022
under Rule 13 of the said Rules provides that the arrears would
be paid in a manner and at such a time as has been approved
by the Government. Resultantly in the subsequent notification
also, for the retirees, there was Clause 10 that the amount was
to be paid in such a manner, as may be decided by the
Government. At the initial stage Civil Writ Petition No.2108 of
2023 titled as Bhagat Ram Vs. HRTC and others was allowed
without calling for the reply by the Coordinate Bench and without
the State having been impleaded as a party. Neither, the Rule
or the Clauses as such, were subject matter of challenge in the
said writ petition.
4. Resultant affect was that the learned Single
Judge(s) while basing their decision on the said order of the
Division Bench, passed various orders allowing the writ petitions
on the same count and also keeping in view the fact that another
Writ Petition No.2421 of 2023 titled as Amar Chand Vs. HRTC
and Others was also decided on 15.06.2023 by the Divisoin
Bench, which was also based upon Bhagat Ram's case (supra).
5. Reference can be made to two-three set of cases for
elucidating the issue on factual matrix as such. On 19.09.2023
CWP No.6611 of 2023 titled as Surinder Singh Vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh and another was decided. On 26.09.2023,
the learned Single Judge disposed of Civil Writ Petition No.5651
of 2023 titled Dr. Sunil Kumar Chandel & Others Vs. State of
H.P. & Others in view of Bhagat Ram's case (supra) and Amar
Chand's case (supra).
6. Similarly, in CWP No.6952 of 2023 titled as Roshan
Lal Khajuria Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another
decided on 27.09.2023, the same order was repeated which is a
subject matter of challenge in LPA No.109 of 2024.
7. Similarly in Civil Writ Petition No.7089 of 2023 titled
as Sunder Lal Negi and others Vs. State of H.P. & others
decided on 29.09.2023, the benefit was granted on the basis of
order passed in CWP No.6611 of 2023 titled as Surinder Singh
Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, decided on
19.09.2023.
8. It is pertinent to notice that in Bhagat Ram's case
(supra), the Coordinate Bench, as such had reviewed the order
on 30.08.2024. Similarly LPA No.85 of 2024 was also allowed by
the Coordinate Bench and the order dated 26.09.2023 was set
aside and Civil Writ Petition No.5651 of 2023 in Dr. Sunil Kumar
Chandel's case (supra) was restored. The learned Single Judge
allowed the Review Petition No.25 of 2024 on 13.12.2024 in
Surinder Singh's case (supra) on the said basis and resultantly,
the said writ petition No.6611 of 2023 is also pending.
9. Thus, we are not referring to the other orders passed
by the learned Single Judge(s), which are in the same terms and
reliance has been made mainly upon the decision in Surinder
Singh's case (supra) and Dr. Sunil Kumar Chandel's case
(supra). While allowing the writ petitions, reference was also be
made to the order passed in CWP No.7376 of 2023 titled as H.P.
Secretariat & other Affiliated Pensioners Welfare
Association Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., which is one of the later
decisions recorded on 22.03.2024, wherein other learned Single
Judge(s) again relied upon Surinder Singh's case (supra) and
Dr. Sunil Kumar Chandel's case (supra) to grant the same
relief.
10. We also find that in CWP No.4586 of 2023 in Tika
Ram Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Another alongwith
36 other cases, which was decided on 21.05.2024 by another
learned Single Judge, the similar judgments passed by the
learned Single Judges have been referred to. We already
noticed, this aspect earlier on 15.05.2025 and also the fact that
none of the writ petitioners' as such had raised challenge to the
Rule in question, vide which the deferred payment methodology
had been adopted by the State. Apparently, now the necessary
applications being CMP No.11374 of 2025 and CMP No.11383
of 2025 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC have been filed in two of the
writ petitions bearing i.e. CWP No.2108 of 2023 in Bhagat
Ram's case (supra) and in CWP No.12323 of 2024 titled as
Rajesh Bakshi Vs. State of H.P. & Others, respectively and the
amended writ petitions have also been filed along with the
applications for challenging the said Clauses of both the
Notifications dated 03.01.2022 and the Office memorandum
dated 25.02.2022.
11. Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that
the orders passed by the learned Single Judge(s) were based
on an order passed by the Division Bench dated 31.05.2023
Bhagat Ram's case (supra), which itself was re-called
on an order passed by the Division Bench dated 31.05.2023
Bhagat Ram's case (supra), which itself was re-called on
30.08.2024, and therefore, there is no decision as such on
merits by the learned Single Judge(s). Even otherwise now
since the Rule as such has been challenged, the matter would
have to be re-heard by the Division Bench. As noticed above,
the Rule was not subject matter of challenge and since the vires
as such is involved, the State's reply is also not on record.
12. Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that
the judgments of the learned Single Judge(s) necessarily have
to be set aside and we accordingly allow all the appeals.
Resultantly all the writ petitions are restored to be heard with
CWP No.2108 of 2023 Bhagat Ram's case etc.
13. Accordingly, appeals are disposed of alongwith
pending application(s), if any.
(G.S. Sandhawalia)
Chief Justice
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
22nd May, 2025
(munish/ankit)
