IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP OA No.: 1667 of 20 19 Decided on : 30 .05.2025 Gopal Singh Verma .…Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Adarsh K. Vashishta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Baldev Negi, Additional Advocate General. Satyen Vaidya, Judge The instant petition has been filed for the following substantive reliefs: i) “That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing Annexure P-8, dated 05.03.2013 addressed by Respondent No.4 to respondent No.1. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:16874 ) ii) A writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents directing the respondents to pay and release Secretariat pay in favour of the petitioner during the period of his posting in H.P. Secretariat @ Rs.600/- p.m. w.e.f. 01.12.2011 to 30.09.2012 and @ Rs.1200/- p.m. w.e.f 1.10.2012 onwards as per sanction accorded by the competent authority by way of office order dated 20.01.2013.” 2. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that he was working as Legal Assistant in the Directorate of Education, H.P. The petitioner was deputed temporarily to Education D-Section of the H.P. Secretariat vide communication dated 09.06.2005, issued from the office of Principal Secretary Education, Government of H.P. 3. Thereafter petitioner continuously served in H.P. Secretariat till his retirement in the year 2023. In between post of Legal Assistant was re-designated as Law Officer in 2006 and later petitioner was promoted as Deputy Director Legal in 2020. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been granted benefit of Secretariat pay in terms of the 3 ( 2025:HHC:16874 ) Notification of the State Government dated 23.04.2012, subsequently amended on 27.09.2012. 5. Petitioner represented his case to the Competent Authority but the representation was rejected and was conveyed to the petitioner by communication dated 05.03.2013. Hence this petition. 6. Respondents are contesting the claim of the petitioner. According to them the petitioner is not entitled to Secretariat Pay for the reason that he was working on the establishment of Directorate of Education and his deployment in H.P. Secretariat was on temporary basis. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully. 8. A copy of Notification dated 23.04.2012 has been placed on record as AnnexureP-3. By way of this Notification, a decision had been taken by the State Government to grant Secretariat Pay to certain categories of employees as detailed in the said Notification. The relevant extract in the Notification reads as Under: 2. “The Governor, Himachal Pradesh, after careful consideration is pleased to order that the 4 ( 2025:HHC:16874 ) certain categories of employees working in the Himachal Pradesh Secretariat and its above stated equivalent offices will be given Secretariat Pay at the rates mentioned in Annexure-A enclosed to this letter with effect from 01.12.2011. The Secretariat Pay admissible under these orders will be treated as part of basic pay for calculation of various types of allowances and pensionary benefits. This Secretariat Pay shall substitute the Secretariat Allowance admissible to all such categories/posts as per letter No.Fin(PR)-B(7)- 4/98 dated 14th January,1999 and subsequent letters issued on the subject from time to time and this Allowance shall stand abolished as on 30.11.2011.” 9. The plain reading of the Notification reveals that the benefit of Secretariat Pay was made available to the categories of employees working in the H.P. Secretariat at the rates mentioned in Annexure-A enclosed to the Notification. The date from which such benefit was made available was 01.12.2011. As per Annexure-A, the Secretariat Pay at the rate of Rs.600/- per month was made available to the post of Law Officer. The rate of Secretariat Pay was enhanced to Rs.1200/- per month in the case of Law Officer vide Notification dated 27.09.2012. 5 ( 2025:HHC:16874 ) 10. It is not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner had worked in H.P. Secretariat from 2005 till 2023. This cannot be termed as temporary deployment by any stretch of imagination. In fact the petitioner had rendered substantial part of his service in H.P. Secretariat and he finally retired therefrom. Even otherwise, the stand taken by the respondents has no basis. It was no where mentioned in the Notification Annexure P-3 that only those employees would be benefited with the Secretariat Pay who were working or were being paid from the establishment of H.P. Secretariat. 11. Thus, the petition is allowed. Communication Annexure P-8 dated 05.03.2013 is quashed and set-aside. The petitioner is held entitled to Secretariat Pay w.e.f 01.12.2011 as per Notification Annexure-P-3. The arrears will be paid to the petitioner within eight weeks from today, failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 6 ( 2025:HHC:16874 ) Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 30th May, 2025 Judge (Veena)