CWPOA/1854/2019 on 12 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

CWPOA No.1854 of 2019

Decided on: 12th October, 2026

Madan Lal Rana and others

...Petitioners

Versus

State of H.P and another

...Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the petitioners: Mr. Karan Singh Parmar, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. R.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General.

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)

The petitioners by way of present petition have prayed for the following substantive relief:- “i) That impugned order dated 18.9.2010 (Annexure P-4) may kindly be quashed and set aside the respondents may kindly be directed to fix the pay of the petitioners in the next higher post by giving them the benefit under Fundamental Rules 22.1

(a) (i) with all consequential benefits.”

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts of the case are that petitioners No.1 to 3 were initially appointed as Junior Machine man and thereafter were promoted to the post of Senior Machineman. Petitioner No.4 was initially appointed as Treadleman 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

and later on promoted as Senior Machineman and petitioners No.5 and 6, who were initially appointed as Binders were promoted as Ware House Operators. Later on, petitioners No.1 and 2 who were working as Senior Machineman were promoted to the post of Computer (Printing) and thereafter to the post of Section Holder and then as General Foreman. Petitioner No.3 was promoted from Senior Machineman to Assistant Section Holder and then Section Holder and petitioner No.4 was promoted to the post of Senior Machineman only. Petitioner No.5 was promoted up to the post of Section Holder and petitioner No.6 to the post of Assistant Section Holder.

3. The precise grievance of the petitioners is that though they have been promoted, but their pay has not been fixed in accordance with the Rules. They have not been given the benefit of Fundamental Rule 22.1(a)(i), though the similarly situate persons, who had approached the Court have been granted the benefit of one increment on their promotion to the next higher post. The petitioners represented to the competent authority to grant them the same and similar benefits, but their claim came to be rejected on the ground that the benefit cannot be extended to them for the reason that it was only confined to those who had approached the Court vide communication dated 18.09.2010 (Annexure P-4).

4. The petitioners feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order dated 18.09.2010, have approached this Court, inter alia, on the grounds that the action on the part of the respondents to deny the benefit of Fundamental Rule 22.1 (a)(i) is highly illegal, wrong, unjust and against Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has further been averred that a person, after promotion to the post of Senior Machineman from the post of Junior Machineman, performs duties of higher responsibility and the said fact is evident from reply filed by the respondents in O.A. No.1701 of 1997, titled, Anokhi Ram and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and once the respondents have admitted that the post of Senior Machineman involves higher duties and responsibilities, the petitioners, who have been promoted without any financial benefits, ought to have been extended the benefit of Fundamental Rule 22.1

(a) (i) while fixing their pay as Senior Machineman.

5. It has further been averred that petitioner No.5 was working as Book Binder and was promoted to the post of Warehouse Operator and despite the fact that he was promoted to the higher post, he was not given the benefit of stepping up. The action on the part of the respondents in not stepping up the pay of petitioner No.5 has resulted into miscarriage of justice, inasmuch as similarly situate persons, who had approached the Court have been granted the benefit of stepping up. It is well settled established law of service jurisprudence that when a judgment is passed by a competent Court of law, it should be implemented qua all employees and the persons should not be unnecessarily dragged to the litigation. The respondents despite aware of the fact that petitioners have been promoted to the next higher post, which involves higher duties and responsibilities, their pay has not been stepped up and as such, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 18.09.2010 passed by the respondents and further directing them to fix the pay of the petitioners in the next higher post by giving them the benefit under Fundamental Rule 22.1(a)(i) with all consequential benefits.

6. The respondents filed reply to the petition and submitted that the petitioners were promoted/transferred in the identical pay scales and according to the existing Fundamental (Third Amendment) Rules, 1989, H.P. Finance Department Office Memorandum dated 23.11.1990 and clarifications dated 04.08.1994 and 01.10.1994, the benefit of FR 22.1 (a)(i) is not applicable to the case, where the transfers/promotions were made in the identical pay scales. The respondents have also averred that the petitioners were not promoted from the post of Senior Machineman to the post of Section Holder and General Foreman, as stated in the petition. It has further been averred that as per Notification dated 30.08.1989, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, (Department of Personnel and Training), which has been circulated by the Himachal Pradesh Government vide Office Memorandum dated 23.11.1990, para 22.1(III), specifically mentions that where the appointment shall not be deemed to involve the assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance, if the post to which it is made is on the same scale of pay as the post, other than a tenure post, which the Government servant holds on regular basis, at the time of his promotion or appointment, or on a scale of pay identical therewith, the benefit of Fundamental Rule 22.1 (a)(i) is not admissible. It has further been averred that the petitioners had opportunity to file an appeal with the Appellate Authority in the matter under Rule 23 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, (in short ‘CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965’), but they have not filed the appeal and have not availed remedy provided under the Rules applicable to them, before approaching this Court and as such, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully.

8. The respondents while filing reply to the petition have mentioned the previous post held by each of the petitioners and the relevant table is reproduced hereunder: Sr.No. Name of Petitioner/No. Previous post held a/w pay scale Post against which promoted/transferred a/w pay scale

1. Madan Lal/P-1 i) Jr.Machineman: Rs.1200- ii) Sr. Machineman: Rs.4400- 7000 (Hr. pay scale).

iii) Computer (ptg.):--do— iv) Section Holder (ptg.): Rs.10300-34800+3200 GP (old Rs.5000-8100) i) Sr. Machineman: Rs.1200-2130. ii) Computer (Ptg.): Rs.4400-7000 (Hr.P.S.)

iii) Section Holder (ptg.): Rs.10300-34800+3200GP (old Rs.5000-8100). iv) General Foreman: Rs.10300-34800+3600GP.

2. Rajinder Kumar/P-2 i) Jr.Machineman: Rs.1200- ii) Sr. Machineman: Rs.4020- 6200 (old Rs.1200-2130).

iii) Computer (ptg.): Rs.4020- 6200.

iv) Asstt. Section Holder (ptg.): Rs.4550-7220. v) Section Holder (Ptg.) Rs.10300-34800+3200GP. i) Sr. Machineman: Rs.1200-2130. ii) Computer (Ptg.): Rs.4020-6200.

iii) Asstt. Section Holder (ptg.): Rs.4550-7220.

iv) Section Holder (ptg.): 10300-34800+3200GP (old 5000-8100). iv) General Foreman: Rs.10300-34800+3600GP.

3. Uma Shankar/P-3 i) Jr.Machineman: Rs.4020- 6200.

ii) Sr. Machineman: Rs.5910- 20200+2800GP (oldRs.4020- 6200).

iii) Asstt. Section Holder (ptg.): Rs.5910-20200+3000GP. i) Sr. Machineman: Rs.4020-6200.

ii) Asstt. Section Holder (ptg.): Rs.5910- 20200+3000GP (old Rs.4550-7220).

iv) Section Holder (ptg.): 10300-34800+3200GP.

4. Vijay Kumar/P-4 Traadleman: Rs.4020-6200. Sr.Machineman: Rs.4020- 6200.

5. Jagdish Kumar/P-5 i) Binder: Rs.4400-7000 (Hr.p.s.) ii) Ware House Operator: Rs.5910-20200+2800GP. (old 4400-7000-Hr.p.s.)

iii) Computer (Bdg.): Rs.5910- 20200+2800GP. iv) Asstt. Section Holder (Bdg.): Rs.5910- 20200+3000GP.

i) Ware House Operator: Rs.4400-7000 (Hr.p.s.) ii) Computer (Bdg.): Rs.5910-20200+2800GP (old 4400-7000-Hr.p.s.)

iii) Asstt. Section Holder (Bdg.): Rs.5910- 20200+3000GP.

iv) Section Holder (Bdg.): Rs.10300-34800+3200GP.

6. Dalel Singh/P-6 i) Binder: Rs.4400-7000 (Hr.p.s.). ii) Ware House Operator: Rs.4400-7000 (Hr.p.s.).

i) Ware House Operator: Rs.4400-7000 (Hr.p.s.).

ii) Asstt. Section Holder (Bdg.): Rs.5910- 20200+3000GP (old4550- 7220).

9. A perusal of the table clearly reveals that the petitioners have been promoted to the higher posts, but they were not granted the benefit under the provisions of FR 22.1(a)(i) after their promotions/placements in few of the posts. Since the petitioners were promoted to the higher posts, either by way of transfer or otherwise, they were entitled to the similar benefits as have been extended to others, more particularly, when the respondents have not disputed the fact that the Junior Machineman works on ordinary letter press printing machine, whereas Senior Machineman operates costly automatic letter press printing machines, as per their stand earlier taken in the Original Application preferred by Anokhi Ram's case (supra).

10. It is apposite to quote the relevant provisions of FR 22.1 (a)(i), which read as under:- “F.R. 22. (I) The initial pay of a Government servant who is appointed to a post on a time-scale of pay is regulated as follows:- [ (a) (1) Where a Government servant holding a post, other than a tenure post, in a substantive or temporary or officiating capacity is promoted or appointed in a substantive, temporary or officiating capacity, as the case may be, subject to the fulfilment of the eligibility conditions as prescribed in the relevant Recruitment Rules, to another post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching to the post held by him, his initial pay in the time-scale shall be fixed by giving one increment in the level from which the

Government servant is promoted and he or she shall be placed at a cell equal to the figure so arrived at in the level of the post to which promoted or appointed and if no such cell is available in the level to which promoted or appointed, he shall be placed at the next higher cell in that level.”

11. A perusal of FR 22.1 (a)(i) clearly reveals that in case a person is appointed to another post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance, than those attached to the post held by him, his initial pay in the time scale shall be fixed by giving one increment in the level from which the Government servant is promoted and he shall be placed at a cell equal to the figure arrived at in the level of the post to which, he is promoted or appointed, and if no such cell is available in the level to which he is promoted or appointed, he shall be placed at the next higher cell in that level.

12. A similar proposition had come up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir and others vs. State of Bihar and others, (2009) 3 SCC 475, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that after promotion, an employee is entitled to be fixed at the stage next above the notional pay arrived at by increasing his pay in respect of the lower post held by him regularly by an increment at the stage at which such pay has accrued or Rs.100/- only, whichever is more, when the higher post carries duties and responsibilities of greater importance. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment read as under:- “39. Rule 22(I)(a)(1) provides that when a government servant is promoted or appointed to a higher post and the higher post he is promoted to carries duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching to the post held by him, his initial pay in the time scale of the higher post shall be fixed at the stage next above the notional pay arrived at by increasing his pay in respect of the lower post held by him regularly by an increment at the stage at which such pay has accrued or rupees one hundred only, whichever is more.

40. According to FR 22(I)(a)(2) the benefit of an additional increment, which is available to a government servant under FR 22(1)(a)(1) would not be available to the government servant if the higher post he is promoted or appointed to does not carry duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching to the post held by him.”

13. In the present case too, it is not the case of the respondents that the posts to which the petitioners were promoted do not carry duties and responsibilities of greater importance, but the only plea which has been taken by the respondents to deny the claim to the petitioners is that where upon transfer/promotion, an employee is placed in the identical pay scales, the benefit is not admissible as per FR 22 and amended Fundamental Rules, 1989. However, such stand cannot be accepted in the teeth of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir’s case (supra).

14. The respondents’ rejection of the petitioners’ claim for the grant of the similar benefit as has been extended to their counterparts is based on the ground that those persons had preferred the petitions before this Court, as is evident from a perusal of order dated 18.09.2010. The said plea cannot be accepted for the reason that once the similarly situate persons have been extended the benefit of FR 22.1 (a)(i), the same benefit cannot be denied to the petitioners, especially when they are also working in the same Department, where the said similarly situate persons were working and granted the relief. Denial of relief to the petitioners amounts to arbitrary and discriminatory action of the respondents and it also offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

15. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 18.09.2010 (Annexure P-4) is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to fix the pay of the petitioners in the next higher post by giving them the benefit under Fundamental Rule 22.1(a)(i) with all consequential benefits on the analogy of their counterparts. In case the arrears on account of the benefit of FR 22.1 (a)(i) are not released in favour of the petitioners within six months from today, the respondents shall pay interest thereon @6% per annum from today till actual payment. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) 12th October, 2026

Judge (naveen)