1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6354 of 2024 Date of decision: 08.07.2025 Mast Ram. ...Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Hirdaya Ram, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner was engaged as Beldar on daily-wage basis in the year 1982. Work-charge status was conferred upon him w.e.f. 01.01.1994. The petitioner was promoted as Mate vide order dated 10.12.2002. The respondents issued a seniority list of workmen wherein the names of Sh. Jai Pal and the petitioner were depicted at higher positions than the workman, Sh. Netar Singh. Due to this higher position assigned to the petitioner and Sh. Jai Pal, the respondents promoted them as Work Inspectors w.e.f. the year 2009. Sh. Netar Singh, who was actually senior to the petitioner and Sh. Jai Pal, was promoted as Work Inspector in the year 2015. -2- Sh. Netar Singh, after his promotion as Work Inspector, instituted CWPOA No.7684 of 2019 seeking parity in promotion vis-à-vis his juniors, i.e. Sh. Jai Pal and the petitioner impleaded therein as respondent No.4 and respondent No.5 respectively. They chose not to contest the writ petition. The writ petition was allowed on 30.06.2021 with directions to the respondents to undertake the process for rectifying the mistake and to promote Sh. Netar Singh from the due date, i.e. 18.02.2010 (the date from which his juniors had been promoted), along with all consequential benefits, including seniority and monetary benefits. The operative paragraph of the judgment reads as under:- “8. In the aforesaid circumstances, present petition is allowed with a direction to respondents No.1 to 3 to undertake process for rectifying the mistake and promote the petitioner from due date, i.e. 18.02.2010, the date from which his junior has been promoted with all consequential benefits including seniority and monetary benefits on or before 31.08.2021. Arrears shall also be paid on or before 30.09.2021, failing which respondents-Department shall also be liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum on the arrears from the date of accrual till final payment thereof. In that eventuality respondents-Department shall be at liberty to recover the interest amount from its officers/officials who would be responsible for delaying the matter.” The aforesaid decision was affirmed in LPA No.73 of 2023, decided on 19.07.2023. In furtherance thereof, the respondents issued an office order dated 10.01.2023 (Annexure P-1), withdrawing the promotions granted to the -3- petitioner and Sh. Jai Pal w.e.f. 03.10.2009. However, based on the recommendation of the Review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), the petitioner and Sh. Jai Pal were promoted to the post of Work Inspector w.e.f. 13.05.2015, i.e. from the date of promotion of Sh. Netar Singh. This compelled the petitioner to institute the present writ petition seeking the following substantive reliefs:- “i) To quash and set aside the impugned Memorandum dated 10-01-2023 and office order dated 10-01-2023 (Annexure P-1) being contrary to the judgments (Annexure P-2 & P-3) passed by this Hon’ble Court together with wrongly fixation of the pay and pension vide office order Annexure P-6 (Colly.) ii). Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the arrears of the salary on account of reduction of basic pay for no fault of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the consequence of Annexure P-1, i.e. the order passed by the respondents withdrawing the petitioner’s promotion as Work Inspector w.e.f. 03.10.2009 and instead promoting him as such w.e.f. 13.05.2015, would result in huge financial loss to the petitioner. His pay would be reduced and the respondents may initiate recovery from the petitioner on account of the excess payment made to him as Work Inspector w.e.f. the year 2009. Petitioner’s pension would also be adversely affected. -4- 3. However, the stand taken by the respondents in their reply is that since the petitioner retired from service in the year 2016, no recovery has been effected from him and his pay has also not been re-fixed. 4. Taking into consideration the aforesaid stand of the respondents in their reply and the documents placed on record, learned Deputy Advocate General was directed to obtain clear instructions from the respondents regarding the petitioner’s monetary entitlements and any adverse effect upon them in view of issuance of office order dated 10.01.2023. Pursuant thereto, the learned Deputy Advocate General placed on record office instructions dated 07.07.2025, which read as under:- “In this regard it is submitted that the petitioner Sh. Mast Ram was retired from service in the year 2016. As such the recovery was not effected from him. Neither the excess payment received by petitioner on account of wrong promotion w.e. f. Year 2009 has not been recovered nor his pension has been reduced by re -fixing his pay on the post of balder from due date. It is further stated that this division has re-fixed the HP, PWD Shimla letter No. 10260-64 dated 10-1-2023 vide this office letter No.3261-66 dated 12-10-2023.” As per the aforesaid office instructions from the Executive Engineer, Sangrah (B&R Division), Sangrah, the petitioner had retired from service in the year 2016, therefore, no recovery was effected from him. The excess -5- payment received by the petitioner on account of his erroneous promotion w.e.f. the year 2009 has also not been recovered. The respondents have further categorically stated that the petitioner’s pension has also not been reduced by re- fixing his pay on the post of Beldar from the due date. In view of the aforesaid office instructions dated 07.07.2025 placed on record by the respondents, and considering the stand of the respondents that no monetary loss has been caused to the petitioner, nor will any financial loss be caused to him in future, and further taking note of the fact that the petitioner, on the date of his retirement, was in any case considered and promoted as Work Inspector on the basis of the recommendations of the Review Departmental Promotional Committee, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed. Taking note of respondents’ stand, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition to accordingly stand disposed of in light of assurance given and the stand taken by the respondents. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 8th July, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)