2025:HHC:16398 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5390 of 2024 Decided on: 28th May, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Surya Prabha and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. M.A. Safee, Mr. Pranav Kumar Kaushal and Mr. Sameer Miyan, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Respondents want to re-litigate an issue upon which not only a judgment has already been rendered, but the same has also been accepted and implemented by them. The dispute in this case pertains to grant of promotional increment to the petitioners upon their promotion as Head Teachers prior to 01.10.2012. 2. Petitioners were appointed as Junior Basic Teachers in the respondent-Education Department on 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:16398 different dates. They were promoted to the post of Head Teacher and subsequently as Centre Head Teachers in accordance with applicable Recruitment & Promotion Rules. The detail of petitioners, reflecting their dates of joining as JBT, promotion as Head Teacher and further promotion as Centre Head Teacher, is being tabulated hereinafter:- S. No. Name Date of Joining as JBT Date of promotion as Head Teacher Date of Promotion as CHT 1. Smt. Surya Prabha 01.03.1984 12.10.2001 01.03.2006 2. Smt. Uma Devi Sharma 15.10.1985 08.08.2003 04.11.2006 3. Smt. Meera Chauhan 04.03.1984 14.05.2003 26.06.2008 4. Shri Jeet Ram Sharma 05.06.1988 23.07.2004 30.04.2008 Petitioners have moved this writ petition seeking following substantive relief:- “(i) That Your Lordships may further graciously be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant the petitioners 3% promotional increment w.e.f. the date of their Promotion as Head Teacher, in view of the provisions of FR 22(I)(a)(1) of FRSR with all consequential benefits @ 9% P.A. as has been laid down in case vide judgment dated 07.07.2023 passed in CWP 2500/2021 titled as Ranjit Singh and Others V/s State of Himachal Pradesh along with other connected matters, wherein it has been held that the Head Teachers are entitled for promotional increment in view of the provisions of FR 22(I)(a)(1) of FRSR.” 3. Heard learned counsel on both sides and considered the case record. 3 2025:HHC:16398 Decision in Ranjit Singh’s case:- 3(i). Issue of grant of promotional increment to the post of Head Teacher was also raised in Ranjit Singh and others Versus State of H.P. and others2. The petitioners therein were promoted as Head Teachers. In fact, some of them stood also promoted to the post of Centre Head Teachers, when they instituted Ranjit Singh2. While deciding the writ petitions, the factum of some of the petitioners having been promoted to the post of Centre Head Teacher was noticed as under:- “2(i) Petitioners were appointed as Junior Basic Teachers (JBT) in respondent-Education Department on different dates. They satisfy the criteria laid down under the applicable Recruitment and Promotion Rues (R&P Rules). 2(ii) Post of JBT held by the petitioners is feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Head Teacher. Post of Head Teacher is feeder category post for promotion to the post of Central Head Teacher. All the petitioners were promoted as Head Teachers. Some of them now stand promoted to the post of Central Head Teacher.” 3(ii). The dispute in Ranjit Singh2 pertained to petitioners’ claim for promotional increment on their promotion to the post of Head Teacher. While deciding Ranjit Singh2, the pay scales enjoyed by the posts of Junior Basic Teacher and Head Teacher were noticed as under:- 2 CWP No.2500 of 2021, decided alongwith connected matters on 07.07.2023 4 2025:HHC:16398 “2(iii) Present dispute pertains to the claim of the petitioners to the promotional increment on their promotion to the post of Head Teacher. Therefore, it will be appropriate to first take note of pay scale enjoyed by the post of JBT and Head Teacher (HT). 1. 2. 3. 4. Sr. No. Date J.B.T. Pay scale H.T. Pay scale 1. w.e.f. 01.01.1986 Rs.1200-2100 1410-2750 2. w.e.f. 01.01.1996 Rs.4020-6200 Further revised to Rs.4550- 7200 4550-7220 3. w.e.f. 01.01.2006 Rs.5910-20200 + 3,000 (GP) after two years of service Rs.10300-34800 + 4200 (GP) 10300- 34800 + 4200 (GP) The above table is indicative of the fact that petitioners and other similarly situated JBTs were initially fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2100 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Pay of Head Teachers was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 1410-2750 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Pre-revised pay scale of JBTs was revised to Rs. 4020-6200 w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Subsequently, this scale was further revised to Rs. 4550-7220 w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Post of Head Teacher was carrying the pay scale of Rs. 4550-7220 w.e.f. 01.01.1996. This was the same scale that was granted to JBTs. According to the petitioners, the post of Head Teacher carries higher responsibilities than the ones attached to the post of JBT. The petitioners though were promoted to the post of Head Teachers, but they remained in the pay scale of Rs. 4550-7220 which was being enjoyed by them as JBTs. With effect from 01.01.2006, the respondents introduced the system of pay band and grade pay. Pay of JBTs was revised and re-fixed in the pay band of Rs. 5910-20200 + 3000/- (G.P.) on their fresh appointment. After two years of regular service, the JBTs were to be granted the pay band of Rs. 10300-34800 + 4200 (G.P.). The Head Teachers were also granted the same pay band and grade pay i.e. Rs. 10300- 34800 + 4200 (G.P.). 2(iv) The petitioners-JBTs were promoted as HTs, but not given promotional increments. Instead, they were given placement allowance of Rs. 100/- per month. 2(v) The respondents issued a Notification on 27.09.2012 revising pay of its employees. The pay-scale enjoyed by JBTs- HTs also underwent revision. It was re-fixed as under:- 5 2025:HHC:16398 Post Pre-revised Pay Revised Pay (Pay Band and Grade Pay) w.e.f. 01.10.2012 JBT Rs.5910-20200 + 3000 GP Rs.10300-34800 + 4200 GP HT Rs.5910-20200 + 3000 GP Rs.10300-34800 + 4400 GP” In the above paragraphs, it was noticed that the post of Junior Basic Teacher was initially fixed in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2100/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Pay of Head Teachers was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.1410-2750/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Pre-revised pay scale of JBT was revised to Rs.4020-6200/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996. This scale was further revised to Rs.4550-7200/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Post of Head Teacher was carrying the pay scale of Rs.4550-7220/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Petitioners in Ranjit Singh2 had contended that the post of Head Teacher carries higher responsibilities than the ones attached to the post of JBT. Petitioners though were promoted to the post of Head Teacher, but they remained in the pay scale of Rs.4550- 7220/-, which was also the pay scale enjoyed by them as Junior Basic Teachers. With effect from 01.01.2006, the respondents introduced the system of pay band and grade pay. Pay of JBTs was revised and re-fixed in the pay band of Rs.5910-20200+Rs.3000/- Grade Pay on their fresh appointment. After two years of regular service, the JBTs were to be granted the pay band of Rs.10300- 6 2025:HHC:16398 34800+Rs.4200/- Grade Pay. The Head Teachers were also granted the same pay band and grade pay. 3(iii). Petitioners in Ranjit Singh2 were promoted as Head Teachers, but not given promotional increment. Rather, they were given placement allowance of Rs.100/- per month, which was subsequently withdrawn from them. 3(iv). On 27.09.2012, respondents issued a notification, revising the pay of some of categories of its employees. In the aforesaid revision, Junior Basic Teachers got Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-, whereas Head Teachers were granted Grade Pay of Rs.4400/- w.e.f. 01.10.2012. All those JBTs, who got promoted as Head Teachers, were to get Rs.4400/- as Grade Pay. Petitioners in Ranjit Singh2 having been promoted as HTs had also got the aforesaid benefit and their grade pay was fixed at Rs.4400/- w.e.f. 01.10.2012, however, they did not get promotional increment on their promotion as Head Teachers. 3(v). On 27.11.2014, the respondent-State itself took a decision to grant promotional increment to the Head Teachers, but the benefit was confined only to such Head Teachers, who were promoted after 01.10.2012. This led to filing of Ranjit Singh’s2 case. Petitioners therein complained that they having been promoted as Head Teachers prior to 7 2025:HHC:16398 01.10.2012, cannot be denied benefit of promotional increment merely on the ground that they were promoted as Head Teachers prior to 01.10.2012, more so, when they were continuing to serve on 01.10.2012. The respondents declined to grant benefit of promotional increment to Head Teachers in Ranjit Singh2 for the reason that the petitioners therein were posted/placed to work as Head Teachers in the pay scale of Rs.4550-7220/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 & Rs.5910-20200/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006; and also in lieu of their placement as Head Teachers, they had been paid allowance of Rs.100 per month prior to grant of higher Grade Pay of Rs.4400/-. As observed earlier, the monthly allowance granted to Head Teachers was subsequently withdrawn by the respondents. 3(vi). After noticing the legal position in D.S. Nakara and others Versus U.O.I.3 and Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ex-employees Association and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others4, following conclusion was drawn on the facts of Ranjit Singh2:- “4(ii) In the backdrop of above legal position, facts of present case be now examined. 4(ii)(a) All the HTs in service on 01.10.2012 are constituents of one common block of HTs. It is an admitted factual position that HTs promoted prior to 01.10.2012 were not 3 1983(1) SCC 305 4 AIR 2023 SC 792 8 2025:HHC:16398 granted promotional increments wherein HTs promoted as such after 01.10.2012 have been granted promotional increments w.e.f. 01.10.2012. The respondents cannot restrict grant of promotional increment only to those HTs who got promoted as such after 01.10.2012. 4(ii)(b) The respondents have created a class within the same set of employees. Category of HTs has been divided into two groups, one who got promoted prior to 01.10.2012 and the other, who were promoted after 01.10.2012. There is no rational behind creating these two groups. Such an action of the respondents in creating these groups for the purpose of paying promotional increment is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the constitution of India. 4(ii)(c) The petitioners, who were promoted as HTs prior to 01.10.2012 or the other incumbents who were promoted as HTs after 01.10.2012 remained as HTs and enjoy the same pay-scale. They are to discharge the same and similar duty. Their promotions prior to 01.10.2012 or after 01.10.2012 will not create any difference insofar as their entitlement to promotional increment is concerned. 4(iii) There is no object or nexus sought to be achieved by creating an artificial class in the cadre of HTs. The main argument pleaded by the respondents that the petitioners on their promotion/placement as HTs were granted Rs. 100/- as monthly allowance also falls flat in view of factual assertion made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this amount now stands withdrawn by the respondents from all the petitioners. 4(iv) Viewing from any angle, it has to be held that irrespective of their dates of promotions as HTs, which are all prior to 01.10.2012, the petitioners are also entitled to the benefit of promotional increments at least w.e.f. 01.10.2012/the date when the respondents decided to release this benefit to the incumbents who were promoted as HTs after 01.10.2012.” In view of above reasoning, Ranjit Singh’s2 case was allowed as under:- “5. For all the aforesaid reasons, these writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to release the promotional increments to the petitioners to the post of Head Teachers w.e.f. 01.10.2012/the date from which 9 2025:HHC:16398 the promotional increment has been released to such of Head Teachers who were promoted as such after 01.10.2012. This exercise be carried out within six weeks, failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 5% p.a. All the pending applications, if any, to stand disposed of.” 3(vii). In Ranjit Singh2, it was held that:-  All Head Teachers in service as on 01.10.2012 constitute one common block of Head Teachers;  Head Teachers promoted prior to 01.10.2012 were not granted promotional increment by the respondents, whereas Head Teachers promoted after 01.10.2012 were granted the same w.e.f. 01.10.2012. This was illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory act of carving out a category within the same common block of Head Teachers. There was no rational behind creating these two groups, i.e. who were promoted as Head Teacher before 01.10.2012 and the other promoted after 01.10.2012. The respondents could not restrict grant of promotional increment only to those Head Teachers, who got promoted after 01.10.2012. Such creation of group for the purpose of paying promotional increment was held illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.  Head Teachers promoted as such prior to or after 01.10.2012 remained as Head Teachers and enjoyed the same scale. They discharged same and similar duties. 10 2025:HHC:16398 Their promotion prior to or after 01.10.2012 will not create any difference insofar as their entitlement for promotional increment is concerned.  Petitioners in Ranjit Singh2 included not only the incumbents promoted to the post of Head Teachers, but also those, who had been subsequently promoted to the post of Centre Head Teachers. They were held entitled to the benefit of promotional increment w.e.f. 01.10.2012, i.e. when the respondents had decided to release the benefit to the incumbents, who were promoted as Head Teachers after 01.10.2012. Admittedly, the respondent-State has accepted the decision in Ranjit Singh2 and has implemented it in several cases. 4. Present case:- 4(i). The present petitioners were also promoted as Head Teachers prior to 01.10.2012. They also got promoted as Centre Head Teachers prior to 01.10.2012. Respondents have not released them promotional increment attached to the post of Head Teacher w.e.f. 01.10.2012 on the ground that they were not only promoted as Head Teachers, but also stood promoted as Centre Head Teachers prior to 01.10.2012. This ground does not change or impact the 11 2025:HHC:16398 reasoning given in Ranjit Singh2 for allowing promotional increment to the Head Teachers promoted prior to or after 01.10.2012 w.e.f. 01.10.2012. Petitioners’ promotion as Centre Head Teacher before 01.10.2012 will not come in their way from getting the promotional increment attached to the post of Head Teacher w.e.f. 01.10.2012, i.e. the date when the respondents decided to release the benefit of promotional increment to the Head Teachers on their promotion as such. 4(ii). Another reason given by the respondents for not applying the decision in Ranjit Singh2 to the case of the petitioners is that the petitioners after the introduction and implementation of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022, had exercised an option for pay fixation by factor of 2.59 in the revised pay structure. The Revised Pay Rules, 2022 came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2016. The option exercised by the petitioners under the Revised Pay Rules, 2022 will not in any manner impact upon conferment of promotional increment to them attached to the post of Head Teacher w.e.f. 01.10.2012. It is the admitted case of the respondents that they have implemented Ranjit Singh’s2 decision and granted promotional increment to the post of Head Teacher w.e.f. 12 2025:HHC:16398 01.10.2012 to all such Head Teachers, who had been promoted as such before 01.10.2012 or after 01.10.2012. Therefore, the distinction being sought to be created on the basis of Revised Pay Rules, 2022 is misconceived. 4(iii). Another justification given by the respondents for denying the applicability of the decision in Ranjit Singh2 to the petitioners is the office letter dated 20.04.2022. According to the respondents, under the said office letter, benefit of Fundamental Rules (F.R.) 22(I)(a)(1) has been held to be not applicable to the petitioners as Head Teachers and the petitioners have not assailed the office letter dated 20.04.2022. The petitioners have placed on record the aforesaid office letter dated 20.04.2022 at Annexure P-6 alongwith their rejoinder. Relevant portion of the office letter reads as under:- “As per Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022 the pay scale of JBT and HT are identical/same in the Pay Matrix, hence in view of facts mentioned above, the benefit of FR 22(1)(a)(i) is not applicable in the HPCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022 to those Head Teachers who are promoted on or after 1.1.2016.” The aforesaid office letter pertains to those Head Teachers, who are promoted as Head Teachers on or after 01.01.2016-after 7th Pay Revision, whereas, the present 13 2025:HHC:16398 petition pertains to the petitioners, who were promoted as Head Teachers before 01.10.2012. The aforesaid office letter and its contents have no applicability to the case of the petitioners. 4(iv). F.R. 22(I)(a)(1) reads 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 fulfillment 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 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. Save in cases of appointment on deputation to an ex cadre post, or to a post on ad hoc basis or on direct recruitment basis, the Government servant shall have the option, to be exercised within one month from the date of promotion or appointment, as the case may be, to have the pay fixed under this rule from the date of such promotion or appointment or to have the pay fixed initially at the stage of the time-scale of the new post above the pay in the lower grade or post from which he is promoted on regular basis, which may be refixed in accordance with this rule on the date of accrual of next increment in the scale of the pay of the lower grade or post. In cases where an ad hoc promotion is followed by regular appointment without break, the option is admissible as from the date of initial appointment/ promotion, to be exercised within one month from the date of such regular appointment. Provided that where a Government servant is, immediately before his promotion or appointment on regular basis to a higher post, drawing pay at the 14 2025:HHC:16398 maximum of the time-scale of the lower post, his initial pay in the time-scale of the higher post shall be fixed at the stage next above the pay notionally arrived at by increasing his pay in respect of the lower post held by him on regular basis by an amount equal to the last increment in the time-scale of the lower post or rupees one hundred, whichever is more.” Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the petitioners cannot get the benefit of F.R. 22(I)(a)(1) in view of F.R. 22(III), which reads as under:- “22(III) For the purpose of this rule, 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 a regular basis at the time of his promotion or appointment or on a scale of pay identical therewith.” In Ranjit Singh2, this controversy has already been put to rest that the post of Head Teachers carries higher responsibilities than the ones attached to the post of JBT, therefore, promotional increment deserves to be granted to them. It is a decision taken by the respondents themselves on 27.11.2014. It was because the respondents had not implemented the aforesaid decision uniformally across the Head Teachers, who had been promoted as such and were restricting the applicability of aforesaid decision only to the Head Teachers who were promoted after 01.10.2012 that the dispute had arisen in Ranjit singh2, in which it was held that the Head Teachers in service as on 15 2025:HHC:16398 01.10.2012 were entitled to promotional increment attached to the post of Head Teacher in terms of respondents’ decision dated 27.11.2014, irrespective of their dates of promotion, whether prior to or after 01.10.2012. Petitioners were promoted as Head Teachers prior to 01.10.2012. Promotional increment attached to the post of Head Teacher cannot be denied to them merely on the ground that they had also been promoted as Centre Head Teachers before 01.10.2012. Petitioners’ subsequent promotion as Centre Head Teacher will not take away their right attached to and flowing from their promotion as Head Teachers. Petitioners might have been promoted as Centre Head Teachers prior to 01.10.2012, but the promotional increment due to them on their promotion as Head Teacher has to be allowed to them w.e.f. 01.10.2012, i.e. the date from which it was released to all Head Teachers in service, irrespective of their dates of promotion as such. 5. In view of above, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to the extend the benefits of the decision in Ranjit Singh2 to the petitioners by passing consequent necessary and appropriate orders within a 16 2025:HHC:16398 period of six weeks from today. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioners. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 28, 2025 Judge Mukesh