IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.4342 of 2024 Decided on 20th July 2026 Sh. Hukam Ram …Petitioner Versus Principal Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: M/s P.M. Negi and D.S. Nainta, Advocates. 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:- “a. That the respondent has passed a stereotypical order without proper application of judicial mind which has caused grave injustice to the petitioner, therefore the impugned order Annexure P-7 may kindly be quashed and set aside. b. That a direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to give the revised pay scale to the petitioner from the year 1986 as allowed to the other Bastabardars in the other Districts in terms of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court alongwith up to date interest as the petitioner clam is securely covered by the above judgment.” 2 2. When this case was taken up for consideration on 28.04.2026, the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, leaving other aspects aside, in light of the fact that it is an admitted position that the petitioner is performing the work of a Basta Bardar, he at least is entitled to the wages of said post for the period during which he has been called upon by the Department to perform the duties of the said post. To this extent, prima facie, it appears that there is merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. Indeed, it is evident even from the impugned order that, as per the respondents, after the petitioner was regularized as a Peon, he was called upon to look after the work of Basta Bardar. Learned Additional Advocate General, therefore, is called upon to obtain instructions as to why the petition cannot be disposed of by directing that the petitioner be paid the wages of the post of Basta Bardar, in case, there is any difference in the wages of work of a Peon as compared to a Basta Bardar, for the period during which he has performed the duties of the said post. As prayed for, list on 02.06.2026.” 3. Thereafter, on 02.06.2026, the following order was passed:- “Learned Additional Advocate General apprised the Court on the strength of instructions received from Assistant Commissioner to Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, dated 05.05.2026, that the post of Peon and Basta Bardar are both categorized as Class-IV and in terms of the relevant Recruitment & Promotion Rules, pertaining to the post of Peon and Notification dated 01.06.1991, dealing with the post of Basta Bardar., the pay scale to both the post are identical. On the request of learned Proxy Counsel for the petitioner, list on 24.06.2026. Learned Additional 3 Advocate General is directed to have these instructions on record by the next date of hearing.” 4. On 24.06.2026, the following order was passed:- “Learned Assistant Advocate General has referred to the instructions received from Assistant Commissioner to Deputy Commissioner Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., dated 05.05.2026, which read as under:- “Kindly refer to your office letter No. CWP 4342/2024 dated 29.04.2026 on the subject cited above and to submit that the posts of Peon and Bastabardar are both categorized as ClassIV (now Group-D) posts. As per the relevant Recruitment and Promotion (R&P) Rules, notified vide Notification No. Rev-A.A.3-1/82-II dated 30.12.1989 for the post of Peon and Notification No. Rev-A(A)3-1/89 dated 01.06.1991 for the post of Bastabardar, the prescribed pay scales for both posts are identical. Copies of the notifications are enclosed herewith for kind perusal. It is further submitted that the petitioner is already in receipt of a special pay allowance amounting to Rs. 100/- (copy of the latest pay slip is enclosed). In view of the above, no anomaly or disparity exists in the salary presently being drawn by the petitioner vis-à-vis that of a Bastabardar.” On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of this Court in CWP No.985 of 2005, titled Tara Chand versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 09.01.2009 and has submitted that in the light of the judgment passed by this Court, the pay scale of the Bastabardars was revised and now the Bastabardars enjoy a higher pay scale as compared to a Peon. Learned Assistant Advocate General submits that he may be granted some time to have instruction in the backdrop of the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. As prayed for, list on 20.07.2026. Necessary instructions be obtained by the learned Assistant Advocate General by the next date of hearing.” 4 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that as the petitioner is not engaged as a Bastabardar and despite his appointment being against the post of a Peon, the work of a Bastabardar is being extracted from him, this petition is disposed of with the direction that as from the date since when the work of Bastabardar is being extracted from the petitioner and till he continues to perform the said duties, the Department shall pay to the petitioner the difference of wages of a Peon and a Bastabardar. The factum of the Bastabardars enjoying a higher pay scale is not in dispute as the same is clearly borne out from the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.985 of 2005, titled Tara Chand versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 09.01.2009. 5. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of by setting aside order dated 22.08.2023, passed by Deputy Commissioner Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 20, 2026 (Vinod)