[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shiv Dutt Sharma And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 26 February, 2026
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2026:HHC:4608
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
CWP No. 19484 of 2025
a/w CWP No. 19455 and
19497 of 2025 & CWPs No.
1257, 1258, 1267 and 1857
of 2026
Decided on: 26.02.2026
of
CWP No. 19484 of 2025
Shiv Dutt Sharma and others .......Petitioners
rt Versus
Union of India and others ... Respondents
CWP No. 19455 of 2025
Dr. Vishal and others .......Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others ... Respondents
CWP No. 19497 of 2025
Dr. Gaurav Soni and others .......Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others ... Respondents
CWP No. 1257 of 2026
Dr. Geeta Devi and others .......Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others ... Respondents
CWP No. 1258 of 2026
Dr. Himanshu Joshi and others .......Petitioners
Versus
::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2026 20:30:18 :::CIS
2
2026:HHC:4608
Union of India and others ... Respondents
.
CWP No. 1267 of 2026
Anmol Rattan and others .......Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others ... Respondents
CWP No. 1857 of 2026
of
Dr. Komalpreet Kaur and others .......Petitioners
rt Versus
Union of India and others ... Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
_____________________________________________________
CWPs No. 19484, 19455 and 19497 of 2025
For the petitioners : Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI with Mr.
Rajeev Sharma, Advocate.
CWPs No. 1257, 1258, 1267 and 1857 of 2026
For the petitioners : Mr. Yogesh K. Chandel, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI with Mr.
Rajeev Sharma, Advocate.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
Tag CWPs No. 19455, 19497 of 2025 & CWPS No. 1257,
1258, 1267 and 1857 of 2026 with CWP No. 19494 of 2026.
2. As common issues of facts and law are involved in these
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2026:HHC:4608
petitions, they are being decided by way of a common judgment. For
.
the purpose of dictating the judgment, the Court shall be referring to
the relief clause as well as documents appended with CWP No.
19484 of 2025.
3. In CWP No. 19484, the petitioners have inter alia prayed
of
for the following reliefs:-
"i) That writ of certiorari may kindly be issued, quashing
rt
and setting aside the impugned order dated 28.11.2025
(Annexure P-5), since the same is discriminatory in nature, in
view of the fact that all the employees are getting the revised
monthly pay in terms of the revision carried by the
respondent authorities, but qua the petitioners, said revised
monthly pay has been withdrawn on the ground that their
petition is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
i) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the
respondent authorities to grant the revised monthly pay to
the petitioners qua their respective streams in view the
revision of monthly pay carried by the respondent authorities
on 24.07.2025.
iii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing
the respondent authorities not to effect recoveries from the
petitioners, since the said payment has been made by the
respondent authorities in accordance with law to the
petitioners in terms of the revision of monthly salary of the
contractual employees carried by the respondent authorities
on 24.07.2025. (iii) That the similar relief as was given by
this Hon'ble Court to similarly situated petitioner as per
annexure P-4 to P-6 may kindly be granted to the petitioner.
iv) That the directions may kindly be issued to the
2026:HHC:4608
respondents to produce the entire record pertaining to the
.
case for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court."
4. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this
petition is being disposed of at this stage itself.
5. The controversy involved in this case is in a very narrow
of
compass. The petitioners herein were appointed under ECHS
Programme and are serving against various posts, as stand
rt
mentioned in the writ petition. As there was a threat of their
disengagement on account of a fresh advertisements being issued by
the ECHS to fill up the posts against which the petitioners were
working, they approached the Court and are still continuing to serve
the department on contract basis on the strength of Court orders.
6. In the meanwhile, in terms of Annexure P-5,
communication dated 28.11.2025, there was revision of
remuneration of contractual employees of ECHS Polyclinics,
however, the revision was denied to the contractual employees like
the petitioners who were continuing on the strength of Court orders
with the observation that they will be paid unrevised rate of salary.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this
Court by way of present writ petition.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the
denial of revised remuneration to the petitioners, who are continuing
2026:HHC:4608
on the strength of Court orders, is totally unjustified. He submitted
.
that it is not as if an employee who is serving on contract basis on
the basis of Court orders is not performing the same duties as are
being performed by the other contractual employees. Learned
Counsel further submitted that the wages are paid to contractual
of
employees for work being extracted from them by the employer and
because the petitioners are continuing on the basis of Court orders,
rt
this does not gives any tool to the respondents to deny the revision
of remuneration of contractual employees to the petitioners. Learned
Counsel also argued that as the respondents themselves have
realized that the remunerations of the contractual employees have to
be revised, the benefit thereof has to be given to all irrespective of
the fact whether they are working on the strength of Court orders or
otherwise. Accordingly, learned Counsel submitted that as the
embargo imposed upon the petitioners and other similarly situated
persons is completely arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, therefore, this petition be allowed and the
clause 2 of Annexure P-5 be struck down by issuing a direction to
the respondents to pay to the petitioners the revised remunerations
of contractual employees.
9. On the other hand, learned Deputy Solicitor General of
India by referring to the reply filed by the respondents, submitted
2026:HHC:4608
that a conscious decision was taken to revise the remunerations of
.
contractual employees and not granting the revision thereof to the
contractual employees who are working on the strength of Court
orders is also a conscious decision. Learned Deputy Solicitor General
of India argued that as an employee who is otherwise serving on
of
contract basis constitutes a different class from the one who is
continuing on the strength of Court orders, therefore, there is
rt
intelligible differentia between these two categories and therefore,
non-grant of revised remunerations to the employees like the
petitioners cannot be termed as discriminatory or violative of Article
14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, he prayed that as there
is no merit in the present petition, the same deserves dismissal.
10. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as also
learned Deputy Solicitor General of India and have also carefully
gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended
therewith.
11. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are continuing to
serve as of today on the strength of Court orders that have been
passed in their favour, ordering their continuation by the Central
Organization of ECHS on contract basis. This continuation, of
course, is subject to outcome of the matter pending before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
2026:HHC:4608
12. The fact of the matter is that on the strength of orders
.
that have been passed by the Court, the petitioners are continuing
to serve the department on contract basis and they are performing
the duties which a contractual employee in routine has to perform. It
is not the case of the respondents herein that the nature of job being
of
performed by a contractual employee ordinarily serving ECHS is
different from the one who is serving, though on contract basis, but
rt
on the strength of the Court orders. Obviously, in light of the fact
that same and similar work is being performed by a contractual
employee, be it the one who is serving the department in routine or
be it the one who is serving the Department on contract basis, on
the strength of Court orders, the principle of equal pay for equal
work comes into vogue and similarly situated persons cannot be
discriminated.
13. Even otherwise, Communication Annexure P-5, which
provides for revision of remunerations of contract employees does
not disclose as to why the contractual employees, who are serving on
the strength of Court orders, should not be paid the revised
remunerations and they should be continued to be paid the old rate
of salary. This observation is not on account of any Court order
which restricts the revision of pay of those contractual employees
who are continuing on the strength of Court orders.
2026:HHC:4608
14. There is a mention of communication dated 13.11.2025
.
in Annexure P-5 and this document is also appended with the reply
filed by the respondents. Incidentally, a perusal of communication
dated 13.11.2025 in general and Clause 2.2.3 thereof in particular
demonstrates that the intent of the revision of remunerations of
of
contractual employees at ECHS Polyclinics (including those who
pursued the legal remedies but did not get a positive order against
rt
enhancement or a blocking order) is to pay all contractual employees
updated rates. What is mentioned in this clause is that only specific
cases covered by stay or status quo orders qua enforceability of their
previously signed MOA are to be kept outside the ambit of revised
pay.
15. In the present case, none of the petitioners are
continuing on the strength of any Court order wherein there is an
embargo with regard to grant of revised remuneration to said
employees. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that
communication dated 13.11.2025 has been wrongly interpreted
while issuing Annexure P5, dated 25.11.2025.
16. The contention of learned Deputy Solicitor General of
India that a contract employee in routine serving the department
and a contractual employee serving on the strength of Court orders
2026:HHC:4608
constitutes two different classes and there is an intelligible
.
differentia between them so as to discriminate them as far as the
payment of revised remunerations is concerned, is not acceptable.
Even if this argument of learned Deputy Solicitor General of India is
to be accepted by the Court that contractual employees in routine
of
serving the Department and contractual employees serving on the
strength of Court orders do constitute two different categories, i.e. a
rt
category which is in routine serving the department and the other
category which is serving on the strength of Court orders, even then,
this classification has no nexus with the object of Annexure P-5
which is to provide revised remunerations to the employees serving
on contractual basis.
17. It is settled law that under Article 14 of the Constitution
of India, classification is permissible but this is so only if the
classification is based on intelligible differentia and the said
intelligible differentia has some nexus with the object to be achieved
on the basis of the said intelligible differentia. Herein, the so called
intelligible differentia which is being carved out so as to deny the
revision of enhanced emoluments to the petitioners cannot pass the
test of touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
18. Accordingly, in light of above discussion, this petition
2026:HHC:4608
alongwith all connected matter, is allowed and Clause 2 of
.
communication dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure P-5) is held to be bad
in law and the respondents are directed to pay to the petitioners also
the revised remunerations as are being paid to other contractual
employees from the due date. Pending miscellaneous application(s),
of
if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
rt
February 26, 2026
(narender)
Judge
