IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.1240 of 2023 Decided on 08th July 2026 Dhani Ram Verma …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioner: Ms. Lalita Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i. That the impugned consideration order dated 06.09.2022 filed alongwith the reply of COC No.370 of 2022 may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii. That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of 4-9-14 pay scale as has been granted to the other similarly situated persons in Annexure P-1, P-4 and P-5.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Junior Engineer in February, 1973. He continued to serve as such till he was initially promoted as Assistant Engineer on Ad- hoc basis on 06.09.2001 and thereafter on regular basis on 24.12.2001. He retired on attaining the age of superannuation 2 on 30.04.2011. According to the petitioner, in terms of notification dated 27.09.2018, Annexure P-1, one Sh. Prem Singh Chaudhary, who was also retired Assistant Engineer, was granted higher scale of Rs.15600-39100+Grade Pay of Rs.7600/- w.e.f. 01.01.2007 i.e., after completion of nine years of service as an Assistant Engineer and also the scale of Rs.37400-67000+Grade Pay of Rs.8600/- w.e.f. 01.01.2009 i.e., after completion of fourteen years of service as an Assistant Engineer. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he was also entitled to similar relief and had also made a representation to the Competent Authority in this regard, but, his case has been rejected on the ground that the incumbents to whom the benefit was given, had passed the departmental examination, whereas, he had not passed the same. 4. In the backdrop of this factual matrix, when this case was listed on 23.03.2026, the following order was passed by the Court:- “The petitioner who is a superannuated employee of the respondent-State is aggrieved by the fact that he was denied higher pay scale on the ground that he as an Assistant Engineer did not pass the departmental 3 examination, which was a condition precedent for the grant of the higher pay scale, whereas, according to the petitioner, in terms of notification dated 18.04.2007 (Annexure P-9), the petitioner once having cross the age of 55 years, was not required to pass the departmental examination for the grant of the said higher pay scale. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the pleadings as well as well documents appended with the petition and the reply, prima facie, there appears to be merit in the contention of the petitioner. In terms of notification dated 18.04.2007, there was an amendment made in the Himachal Pradesh Department Examination Rules 1997 to the effect that a gazetted Officer on attaining the age of 55 years shall not be required to pass the departmental examination prescribed under the said Rules, as amended from time to time, inter alia, for the purpose of higher scale. Faced with this situation, learned Additional Advocate General submits that he may be granted some time to have instructions in this regard. List on 20.04.2026. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that other incumbents similarly situated as the petitioner have also been granted higher pay scale, though, they have not passed the departmental examination, in terms of the information which has been received under Right to Information Act, which is also on record. Learned Additional Advocate General to have instructions in this respect also.” 5. Thereafter, when the case was listed on 22.06.2026, the following order was passed by the Court:- “The case of the petitioner is that he has not been given the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme on the ground that he had not passed the Departmental examination. 4 Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that whereas on one hand, the benefit of Assured Career Progression has been denied to the petitioner on the ground that he has not passed the Departmental examination, but persons similarly situated like the petitioner, like one Prem Singh, was given the benefit of Assured Career Progression, though he had also not passed the Departmental examination. Learned Additional Advocate General to have specific instructions in this regard by the next date. List on 08.07.2026.” 6. In terms of order dated 22.06.2026, learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record instructions received from Additional Secretary (Jal Shakti) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, dated 08.07.2026, which read as under:- “I am directed to refer to your office letter No.CWP 1240/2023 dated 23.06.2026 on the subject cited above and to say that the matter was earlier listed before the Hon'ble High Court of HP on 22.06.2026 and after hearing the matter. the Hon'ble High Court of HP has passed the following orders:- The case of the petitioner is that he has not been given the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme on the ground that he had not passed the Departmental examination. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that whereas on one hand, the benefit of Assured Career Progression has been denied to the petitioner on the grounds that he has not passed the Departmental examinations, but, persons similarly situated like the petitioner, i.e. one Prem Singh, was given the benefit of Assured Career Progression, though he had also not passed the Departmental examinations. Learned Additional Advocate General to have specific instructions in this 5 regard by the next date. List on 08.07.2026." In this context, it is submitted tht Shri Prem Singh Chaudhry, Assistant Engineer (Retired) who was similarly situated to the petitioner, was granted four tier pay scale of Rs. 15,600-39100+Rs. Rs. 7600-(prevised) w.e.f. 01.01.2007 on completion of 09 years of service and Rs 37,400-67,000-GP Rs. 8600 (pre-revised) w.e.f. 01.01.2009 on completion of 14 years of service vide this Department's dated 27.09.2018. The benefit was allowed strictly in accordance with notification of Department of Training and Foreign Assignment No. Per(Trg.)A(4)-2/92-II part dated 18.04.2007. Thereafter the clarification was sought from the Finance Department during the year 2020 with regard to grant of four tier pay scale to the Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer that as to whether a Gazetted Officer on the attainment of 55 years of age shall be required to pass the prescribed departmental examination for the purpose of crossing the efficiency bar/proficiency step up/higher scale or otherwise, The Finance Department has advised that in case where departmental examination/acquisition of higher qualification/refresher course special experience/training is prescribed as pre-requisite eligibility for promotion to higher post, only such employees who fulfill these requirements shall be considered for placement in the higher pay scale. As per the advice of the Finance Department. only such officers/employees who fulfill these requirement including passing the departmental examinations shall be considered for placement of higher pay scale. Since the petitioner had not passed the departmental examinations, therefore, the four tier pay scale has not been granted to the petitioner. However the similarly situate person Shri Prem Singh has been granted the said scale prior to the advice of the Finance Department.” 6 7. A perusal of these instructions clearly demonstrates that it is an admitted fact that Sh. Prem Singh, who was granted the scales referred to in Annexure P-1 had also not passed the departmental examination, but, as per the instructions, he was granted the scale prior to the advise given by the Finance Department, which is mentioned in the instructions issued in the year 2020. 8. This Court is of the considered view that in light of the fact that the petitioner and Sh. Prem Singh were similarly situated, the Department could not have discriminated between the two, as far as the conferment of the benefit of ACP is concerned, on the pretext that the petitioner had not cleared the departmental examination. It is clearly borne out from the record that Sh. Prem Singh had also not passed the departmental examination and yet the benefit of Assured Carrier Progression Scheme was given to him while the petitioner was denied similar relief. 9. Annexure P-1, in terms whereof, the benefit was given to Sh. Prem Singh alongwith another incumbent is dated 27.09.2018. The petitioner had superannuated from the post of 7 Assistant Engineer on 30.04.2011. In the light of the fact that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Engineer on regular basis on 24.12.2001, he was at least entitled for the stepping up of his pay upon completion of nine years of service as an Assistant Engineer, if not fourteen also. The same could not have been denied to him on the ground that he had not passed the departmental examination. 10. At this stage, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that it is apparent from the instructions that when Sh. Prem Singh was granted the benefit of Assured Carrier Progression Scheme, the clarification issued by the Finance Department had not come into force, but, subsequently, as the clarification of the Finance Department came in the year 2020, the petitioner has been rightly not given the benefit. 11. This Court does not agree with the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General. In the present case, it is not as if the petitioner retired after the year 2020. The petitioner had retired as far back as in the year 2011. He had put in the requisite number of years of service as an Assistant Engineer, as on the date when he retired. If the case 8 of Sh. Prem Singh could have been considered for the stepping up of the pay in the year 2018, despite the fact that he had not passed the departmental examination, it is not understood as to what prevented the Department from considering the case of the petitioner also for conferment of the same benefit, as admittedly, Sh. Prem Singh was similarly situated as the petitioner, as far the passing of the departmental examination is concerned. 12. Therefore, in the light of the above discussions, the petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 06.09.2022 (Annexure P-8) is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to confer the benefit of Assured Carrier Progression Scheme, upon completion of nine years of service as an Assistant Engineer upon the petitioner. In light of the fact that the petitioner has been agitating the issue immediately after he was denied this benefit and when Sh. Prem Singh was conferred the benefit, it is directed that actual monetary benefit shall be granted to the petitioner as from the date of this judgment. 9 13. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 08, 2026 (Vinod)