IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1571 of 2018 Date of Decision: 10.4.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Gurpyar Singh ……...Petitioner Versus Union of India and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary and Mr. H.R. Sidhu, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr.Lokender Paul Thakur, Senior Panel Counsel. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Consequent upon implementation of 6th Central Pay Commission, the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules 2008, were to be implemented and in terms of Rule-11 of afore rules, option was to be exercised by such employees, who were placed in higher pay scale between 1.1.2006 and date of notification of afore Rules dated 29.9.2008. Since petitioner herein failed to exercise the option in terms of aforesaid rules on account of his posting in Leh Ladakh at the relevant time, he was not extended benefit of higher pay, whereas persons junior to him i.e. private respondents No. 6 and 7, were extended such benefits. On account of extension of afore benefit, private respondents are at present getting higher pay than the - 2 - petitioner. In the afore background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings seeking therein direction to the respondents to re-fix his pay against the post of Sub Inspector in terms of rule 11 of Revised Pay Rules 2008 of 6th Pay Commission from due date i.e. 3.5.2007 and 15.7.2008 when the fixation of pay and pay scale was carried qua similarly situate persons as well as junior persons to the petition within the stipulated time. 2. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed reply, wherein it is averred that petitioner did not exercise option to fix his pay under rule 11 within the stipulated time, as a result thereof, pay of the petitioner, was revised as per recommendation of the 6th Central Pay Commission w.e.f. 1.1.2006 @ 7850+2400 and thereafter, on promotion to the rank of SI (MT), his pay was fixed @ Rs. 9300+4200 w.e.f. 3.5.2007 in pay band-II (9300- 34800+GP 4200) Though, as per reply filed by the respondents, petitioner has been paid arrears of pay fixation w.e.f. 1.1.2006 to 2.5.2007, for revised pay scale, but since respondents No. 6 and 7 had elected/opted to switch over to 6th Central Pay Commission, Revised Pay Rules, 2008 w.e.f. date of promotion under Rule 11, their pay was fixed @ Rs.10230+4200 w.e.f. 3.5.2007 and 15.7.2008, respectively. It is not in dispute that respondents No. 6 and 7 though are junior to the petitioner, but on account of their having exercised - 3 - option well within time, they are in receipt of higher pay than petitioner. 3. During proceedings of the case, Mr. R L. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, invited attention of this court to communications dated 17.5.2017 and 19.9.2017 (Annexure P-10 and 11) issued under the signature of Senior Administrative Officer and Deputy Inspector General (Indo Tibetan Boarder Police) Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, to demonstrate that since at the relevant time, petitioner was serving in Leh Ladakh and no forms were sent to him by the office for exercising option in terms of Rule-11 of the Rules, there was otherwise no occasion for the petitioner to exercise option in terms of aforesaid Rules well within time. 4. Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner states that though afore authorities requested the competent authority to afford one opportunity to the petitioner to exercise option in the peculiar facts and circumstances, but till date needful has not been done, as a result thereof, petitioner is suffering continuously for no fault of him. 5. After having carefully perused aforesaid communications Mr. Lokender Paul Thakur, learned Senior Panel Counsel, fairly states that a direction can be issued to the competent authority to consider the request of the petitioner to take final decision on the request of the petitioner, taking note of the communication dated 19.9.2017, issued - 4 - under the signature of DIG, Lucknow. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not averse to the aforesaid suggestion made by learned Senior Panel counsel, but he states that a direction may be issued to the aforesaid authority to do the needful in a time bound manner. 6. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Senior panel counsel, without going into the merits of the case, this Court deems it fit to issue direction to the respondents to consider the prayer made by the petitioner in the instant petition in light of communication dated 19.9.2017 (Annexure P-11) expeditiously, preferably, within six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order taking note of the fact that on account of his posting in Leh Ladakh at the relevant time, petitioner was unable to exercise option in terms of rule-11 of Rules well within stipulated time. After doing the needful within time stipulated by this Court in terms of instant order, afore authority shall file compliance affidavit, which in turn shall be placed before this court by the Registry. 7. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. April 10, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge