1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.227 of 2025 Reserved on : 24.03.2026 Decided on : 08.04.2026 Uploaded on : 08.04.2026 Chet Ram …… Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …… Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2/State. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 18.11.2024, passed by learned Single Judge, whereby, the claim of the appellant/writ petitioner qua pay parity with his junior, namely one Shri Kehar Singh, has been denied. In the writ petition preferred by the present appellant, a challenge has been laid to Annexure P-12, i.e., letter dated 07.03.2016 addressed by the Director, Horticulture, Himachal Pradesh, i.e., respondent No.2 to the present appellant/writ petitioner denying pay parity to the appellant/writ petitioner with his junior 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 one Shri Kehar Singh, on the ground that prior to promotion to the post of Senior Assistant, both i.e, appellant/writ petitioner and respondent No.3, were working on different categories/posts. 2. Brief facts, in the case at hand, are as follows:- (i) the present appellant/writ petitioner was appointed as a Stenographer on 11.12.1974. Thereafter, he was promoted as a Junior Scale Stenographer, on 19.08.1982. The post of Junior Scale Stenographer was a feeder category for promotion to the post of Assistant/Accountant/Junior Auditor. However, vide notification dated 30.09.1995, the category of Junior Scale Stenographer was deleted from the feeder category. (ii) In the aforesaid attending facts and circumstances, the appellant/ writ petitioner was overlooked for promotion, in the year, 1997. As a consequence whereof, the appellant/ writ petitioner had preferred a petition bearing CWP(T) No.4095 of 2008, titled Chet Ram vs. State of H.P. and another, wherein, the contention raised was that the appellant/writ petitioner be considered for promotion on the basis of vacancies which were available before the amendment carried out in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, on 30.09.1995, whereby, as stated supra, post of Junior Scale Stenographer had been deleted from the feeder category. (iii) Based on the pleadings in the aforesaid CWP(T) No.4095 of 2008, the present appellant/writ petitioner was held entitled to be considered for promotion on the basis of old vacancies which were available before the amendment in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, on 30.09.1995. The 3 aforesaid petition was decided on 22.04.2013 and respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant by holding the review DPC. (iv) In pursuance to the aforesaid judgment dated 22.04.2013, a review DPC was held on 24.08.2013. The review DPC recommended the promotion of the appellant/writ petitioner from 06.08.1994, i.e., the date his junior Kehar Singh (respondent No.3) was promoted. Further, since the post of Senior Assistant was not vacant on the above said date, therefore, a supernumerary post was required to be created. 3. Attention of the Court has been invited to the joint seniority list of Junior Assistants/Junior Scale Stenographers, wherein, the present appellant/writ petitioner has been shown at Sr. No.6 and Shri Kehar Singh (respondent No.3) had been shown at Sr. No.9 (Page-93 of the paper book). 4. Other than the aforesaid, attention of the Court has also been drawn to Annexure P-10 appended along with the writ petition, whereby, the Director of Horticulture (respondent No.2) had recommended the case of the appellant/writ petitioner for re-fixation of pay as his junior, Shri Kehar Singh (respondent No.3) was drawing more pay. 5. In the aforesaid factual matrix, it is evident that Shri Kehar Singh (respondent No.3) was junior to the present appellant/writ petitioner, therefore, the appellant/writ petitioner is entitled for re-fixation of higher pay as was being drawn by his junior. The reason for denial 4 stated in the rejection order (Annexure P-12) by respondent No.1 is baseless. In the rejection order (Annexure P-12), it had been stated that prior to being promoted as a Senior Assistants, both the appellant as well as respondent No.3 were working on different categories/posts. As had already been stated supra, a joint seniority list has been placed at Page- 93 of the paper book. The joint seniority list pertains to the posts of Junior Scale Stenographers/Junior Assistants. Even otherwise, once a promotion is effected to a common cadre from different feeder categories, then the original birth mark of the feeder category is obliterated/lost. For the said reason, rejection order (Annexure P-12) is without any basis in law. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, present appeal is allowed. impugned judgment dated 18.11.2024, passed by learned Single Judge, in CWP No.1099 of 2020, titled Chet Ram vs. State of H.P. and others, is quashed and set aside. Rejection order (Annexure P-12) is also quashed and set aside. The appellant/writ petitioner is held entitled to a higher pay fixation, as what has been paid to his junior, i.e., Shri Kehar Singh. 7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) (Bipin Chander Negi) Chief Justice Judge 08th April, 2026 (KS)