2025:HHC:20639 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8150 of 2024 Decided on: 1st July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Narender Kumar …..Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Surender Sharma and Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Respondents notified the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited (Revised Pay) Regulations, 2022 on 12.04.2022. The Regulations were brought in force on and w.e.f. 01.01.2016. As per these Regulations, option was to be exercised within a period of two months from the date of issue of regulations. The option once exercised was to be treated as final. The petitioner exercised his option on 09.05.2022 for pay fixation by factor of 2.59 in the revised pay structure w.e.f. 01.01.2016. His pay was accordingly 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:20639 fixed by the respondents in the revised pay scale. One office order No.2 was issued by the respondents on 13.04.2022 that ‘in the case of employees appointed before 01.01.2016, if the increase in the revised pay fixed under the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. (Revised Pay) Regulations, 2022, is less than 15% (fifteen percent) over and above the formulation of existing Basic Pay as on 31.12.2015 plus notional Dearness Allowance calculated @ 113% (one hundred thirteen percent), such employee shall be entitled to minimum increase of 15% (fifteen percent), over and above the formulation of existing Basic Pay as on 31.12.2015 plus notional Dearness Allowance calculated @ 113% (one hundred thirteen percent)’. No timeline was laid down for exercise of option for availing 15% enhancement. Subsequently, the respondents issued another office order on 08.07.2022, revising the pay band of its employees including the petitioner w.e.f. 01.10.2012. This office order also did not set out any timeline for revising or furnishing a new option for fixation of pay. On 02.05.2024, petitioner represented to the respondents to let him exercise fresh option for 15% increase in view of office orders dated 13.04.2022 and 08.07.2022. The respondents rejected petitioner’s representation on 30.05.2024 on the ground 3 2025:HHC:20639 that opportunity was given to all the employees, who were covered under the ambit of office order dated 08.07.2022, to revise their option upto 12.10.2022, however, the petitioner had failed to avail the opportunity within the stipulated timeline. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted this writ petition. 2. Facts:- 2(i). Petitioner was appointed as Clerk with the respondent-Board on 19.12.2003 on regular basis. He was promoted as Senior Assistant on 01.05.2017 in the pay band of Rs.6400-20200+Rs.3800/- Grade Pay. 2(ii). Respondents notified Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited (Revised Pay) Regulations, 2022 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Revised Pay Regulations, 2022’). The Regulations were brought in force on and w.e.f. 01.01.2016. Regulation 6 of the Revised Pay Regulations, 2022 pertained to exercise of option made available to the Board employees for switching over to the revised pay structure. In terms of Regulation 6(1), the option was to be exercised within a period of two months from the date of issue of regulations. Regulation 6(4) provided that option once exercised would be final. Relevant portion of Regulation 6 is extracted hereinafter:- 4 2025:HHC:20639 “6(1) The HPSEBL employee shall exercise option in the Form appended to these regulations so as to reach the authority specified in sub-regulations (2) within a period of two months from the date of issue of these regulations. Provided that:- (i) in the case of a HPSEBL employee, who on the date of notification of these regulations, is on Ex-India leave or on deputation or on foreign service or on active service, the option shall be exercised in the said Form so as to reach the said authority within a period of one month from the date of his taking the charge of his post under the HPSEBL, if that date is later than the date specified in this sub regulation; and (ii) where a HPSEBL employee is under suspension on the date of issue of these regulations, the option shall be exercised within a period of one month from the date of his return to his duty, if that date is later than the date specified in this sub-regulation. (2 & 3) xxx xxx xxx (4) The option once exercised shall be final.” 2(iii). Petitioner accordingly exercised his option for switching over to the revised pay scale on 09.05.2022 by opting the factor of 2.59. On 08.07.2022, the respondents issued office order No.8/2022. In terms of the said office order, existing pay structure of respondent-Board’s employees was revised w.e.f. 01.10.2012. The pay was accordingly ordered to be re-fixed w.e.f. 01.10.2012 to 31.12.2015 notionally as per the revised pay structure tabulated in the office order. The revised pay band was admissible to Board’s employees w.e.f. 01.10.2012. Relevant portion of the office order reads as under:- “In continuation to this office order No.4 dated 01.11.2014 further endorsed vide No.HPSEBL 5 2025:HHC:20639 (SECTT)/Scale-1 (Regulation)/2014-44659-879 dated 01-11-2014 and office order No.12/HPSEBL (SECTT)/2015 dated 04.07.2015 even No.30895-31115 dated 04.07.2015, the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. is pleased to revise the Pay Band of its employees with effect from 01.10.2012 as shown in column No.4 of general conversation table of HPSEBL Revised Pay Regulation, 2009 dated 30-12-2009 as under:- G/ No. Existing Pay Structure w.e.f. 01.10.2012 Revised Pay Structure w.e.f. 01.10.2012 Pay Band G/Pay Initial Pay Pay Band G/Pay Initial Pay 4 6400- 20200 3400 10010 10900- 34800 3400 14300 5 6400- 20200 3450 10170 10900- 34800 3450 14350 6 6400- 20200 3500 10700 10900- 34800 3500 14400 7 6400- 20200 3700 11700 10900- 34800 3700 14600 8 6400- 20200 3800 12560 10900- 34800 3800 14700 9 6400- 20200 3850 13060 10900- 34800 3850 14750 17 10900- 34800 5750 20170 16650- 39100 5750 22400 1. Pay will be re-fixed w.e.f. 01.10.2012 to 31.12.2015 notionally as per above revised pay structure. However, 50% of the total arrear shall be given for the period 01.01.2016 to 12.04.2022 for such enhancement as may be decided by the HPSEBL. 2. The revised pay band will be allowed to HPSEBL employees w.e.f. 01.10.2012. 3. All other terms and conditions contained in Regulation, 2014, notified vide this office order No.4/HPSEBL (Sectt.)/2014 dated 01.11.2014 shall remain unchanged including applicability of Revised Pay Band after rendering two years regular service.” Pursuant to above office order, petitioner’s pay was also re-fixed w.e.f. 01.10.2012 to 31.12.2015. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of issuance of office order dated 08.07.2022, he was posted in the field. 6 2025:HHC:20639 2(iv). On 08.06.2022, the respondents issued office order No.7/2022, ‘extending the date for exercising of option on revision of pay scale up to 12.08.2022 in continuation to HPSEBL (Revised Pay) Regulations, 2022 notified vide office order No.1 dated 12.04.2022. All other terms & conditions shall remain unchanged as notified vide above office order’. The above was followed by another office order No.10/2022, dated 23.07.2022, giving opportunity to the employees to revise their option within the extended period to get their pay fixed/revised as notified vide office order No.7, dated 08.06.2022. Office order No.10/2022 reads as under:- “In continuation to this office order No.8 dated 08.07.2022 further endorsed vide No.HPSEBL (SECTT)/Scale-1 (Regulation)/2022-32317-537 dated 08.07.2022, the employees will also have an opportunity to revise their option within the extended period to get their pay fixed/revise as notified vide this office order No.7 dated 08.06.2022 further endorsed vide No:HPSEBL (SECTT)/Scale-1 (Regulation)/2022- 21013-21233 dated 08.06.2022. All other terms and conditions shall remain un- changed as mentioned in office order No.8 dated 08.07.2022.” Time for exercising revised option consequent upon issuance of office order No.8, dated 08.07.2022, was further extended upto 12.10.2022 under office order No.11 7 2025:HHC:20639 of 2022, dated 15.09.2022. The said office order No.11/2022 reads as under:- “In continuation to this office order No.10 dated 23.07.2022 further endorsed vide No:HPSEBL (Sectt.)/SA/Scale-1 (Regulation)/2022-40768-988 dated 23.07.2022, the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. is pleased to further extend the date of exercising of revise option consequent upon this office order No.8 dated 08.07.2022 up to 12.10.2022. “All other terms and conditions shall remain un- changed.” 2(v). The petitioner was transferred and posted in the respondent-Board’s headquarter at Shimla in the month of January, 2023. It is his pleaded case that after few months of this posting, he noticed disparity in his pay scale and the one being enjoyed by his juniors. He inquired into the matter and became aware of his juniors having exercised a revised option for availing 15% increase in view of office orders dated 13.04.2022 and 08.07.2022. On becoming aware of these facts, the petitioner also represented to the respondents on 02.05.2024 (Annexure P-3) for allowing him an opportunity to exercise option for 15% enhancement. This representation was rejected by the respondents on 30.05.2024 (Annexure P-4) on the ground that opportunity to exercise revised option was made available by the respondents vide office orders dated 08.06.2022, 23.07.2022 and 15.09.2022. The time period to exercise 8 2025:HHC:20639 option elapsed on 12.10.2022. Hence, the petitioner was not permitted to exercise revised option for taking the benefit of office orders dated 13.04.2022 and 08.07.2022 as per his preference. In the above background, the petitioner has instituted this writ petition, seeking following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned Annexure-P4, dated 30.05.2024, issued by respondent No.1, may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to exercise option in the revised pay structure of 15% hike and thereafter, the respondents may kindly be directed to refix/revise the pay of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.05.2017 with all consequential benefits including arrears. (iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the arrears of pay, which is to be revised after exercising the option of 15% hike within a period of one month.” 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4. Consideration:- 4(i). It is a matter of record that Revised Pay Regulations, 2022 were notified by the respondent-Board on 12.04.2022 for revising the pay scale of its employees w.e.f. 01.01.2016. As per these Regulations, option was to be exercised by the employees of the respondent-Board within a period of two months from the date of issue of the 9 2025:HHC:20639 regulations. The said option was to be treated as final. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had exercised his option accordingly within the stipulated period on 09.05.2022. 4(ii). The dispute in the present petition revolves around office orders No.2/2022, dated 13.04.2022 and No.8/2022, dated 08.07.2022. Office order dated 08.07.2022 revised petitioner’s pay scale w.e.f. 01.10.2012 to 31.12.2015, however, the said office order in itself did not direct the employees to exercise option for coming over to the said revised pay scale. Similarly, office order dated 13.04.2022 held an employee, appointed before 01.01.2016, entitled to minimum increase of 15% over & above formulation of his existing Basic Pay as on 31.12.2015 plus notional Dearness Allowance @ 113%, if the increase in his revised pay fixed under the Revised Pay Regulations, 2022 was less than 15% over & above formulation of existing Basic Pay as on 31.12.2015 plus notional Dearness Allowance calculated @ 113%. This office order further states that an employee, who has already been placed in higher pay scale between 01.01.2016 and 12.04.2022 (date of notifying Revised Pay Regulations, 2022) on account of promotion, shall have the option to 10 2025:HHC:20639 switch over to the revised pay structure from date of such promotion. The order, however, is silent with respect to time limit for exercising such option. The respondent-Board has rejected petitioner’s representation dated 02.05.2024 seeking exercise of option for 15% enhancement on the ground of petitioner’s having not furnished the option in terms of office orders dated 08.06.2022, 23.07.2022 and 15.09.2022, whereunder, the date for exercise of option was extended from time to time and finally upto 12.10.2022. Relevant portion of these office orders has been extracted in para 2 above. A perusal thereof makes it evident that in terms of these office orders, the respondents had extended the date for exercise of option pursuant to the Revised Pay Regulations, 2022, notified on 12.04.2022. These office orders will not impact the option sought to be exercised by the petitioner on 02.05.2024 as petitioner’s option for 15% enhancement pertained to office order dated 13.04.2022 entitling 15% enhancement in stipulated conditions and office order dated 08.07.2022, whereby his pay was re-fixed w.e.f. 01.10.2012 to 31.12.2015. Office order dated 08.07.2022 is independent of the Revised Pay Regulations, 2022, notified on 12.04.2022. Office order dated 08.07.2022 does not 11 2025:HHC:20639 make any reference to the Revised Pay Regulations, 2022. It also does not provide any opportunity to the employees to exercise option for switching over to the revised pay scale or timeline thereof. Office order dated 13.04.2022 provides for exercise of option for availing 15% hike, but does not direct exercise of option within any fixed time frame. Rather, it also states that necessary amendment in accordance with office order dated 13.04.2022 shall be carried out in the Rules. No such amendment in the Rules has been placed on record. The office order dated 13.04.2022 is not part of Revised Pay Regulations, 2022. In such background, the option to be exercised in terms of the Revised Pay Regulations, 2022 and the time limit for exercise of option in the said Regulations, will not be ipso-facto applicable to the exercise of options under office orders dated 13.04.2022 and 08.07.2022. Office orders dated 08.06.2022, 23.07.2022 and 15.09.2022 can at best be construed to be extending the time to exercise option under the Revised Pay Regulations, 2022. Hence, these office orders will not have any applicability for considering the case of the petitioner for 15% hike in view of the pay revision under office order dated 08.07.2022 and the 15% enhancement given under office order dated 13.04.2022. 12 2025:HHC:20639 4(iii). At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondent-Board had published the aforesaid office orders dated 08.06.2022, 23.07.2022 and 15.09.2022 on its website, therefore, the petitioner ought to have availed the benefits thereof as he is presumed to be in knowledge of the said office orders. It has already been held that these office orders do not have any impact on the case of the petitioner as he seeks to exercise option for 15% enhancement in terms of office orders dated 13.04.2022 and 08.07.2022, in which no timeline was prescribed for exercise of option. In fact, opportunity to exercise option was not even indicated in office order dated 08.07.2022. However, regarding respondents’ plea that the aforesaid office orders were in public domain and the petitioner is bound to be aware of their having been issued, it will be appropriate to refer to Satish Kumar Versus State of H.P. & Ors.2, wherein somewhat similar issue was involved and similar plea was taken. The point was answered as under:- “4(iv) It is the case of the petitioner that office letter dated 10.02.2022 was not brought to the notice of the Government employees like the petitioner by the respondents in accordance with law. That it was not brought to the notice either by way of publication in the 2 CWP No.1558/2024, decided on 24.04.2025 13 2025:HHC:20639 official Gazette or through any other reasonable mode of publication. The respondents’ stand is that ‘notification dated 10.02.2022 was in public domain and the petitioner was liable to be aware of this notification’. Firstly it is to be noticed that in terms of Section 2 (30) of the Himachal Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1968, ‘notification shall mean a notification published under proper authority in the official Gazette’. Letter dated 10.02.2022 is neither nomenclatured as notification nor published in the official Gazette, hence cannot be treated as notification. Secondly, the factual assertion of the petitioner is that he was posted in the field at the relevant time. The moment he became aware of office letter dated 10.02.2022, he represented to the respondents i.e. on 31.01.2023 for claiming the benefits flowing from the said office letter. It would be relevant to quote M/s Pankaj Jain Agencies Vs. Union of India & Ors.3 Hon’ble Apex Court held that if a subordinate legislation does not prescribe mode of publication or the mode prescribed is unreasonable, the legislation will take effect only when it is published through customarily recognized official channel-the official Gazette or some other reasonable mode of publication:- “9. In the present case indisputably the mode of publication prescribed by Section 25(1) was complied with. The notification was published in the Official Gazette on the 13-2-1986. As to the effect of the publication in the Official Gazette, this Court held [Srinivasan case8 AIR at P. 1067): "Where the parent statute is silent, but the subordinate legislation itself prescribes the manner of publication, such a mode of publication may be sufficient, if reasonable. If the subordinate legislation does not prescribe the mode of publication or if the subordinate legislation prescribes a plainly unreasonable mode of publication, it will take effect only when it is published through the customarily recognised official channel, namely, the Official Gazette or some other reasonable mode of publication.” (emphasis supplied) 3 AIR 1995 SC 360 14 2025:HHC:20639 We, therefore, see no substance in the contention that notwithstanding the publication in the Official Gazette there was yet a failure to make the law known and that, therefore, the notification did not acquire the elements of operations and enforceability. This contention of Shri Ganesh is unacceptable.” State of Maharashtra Vs. Mayer Hans George4, holds that if there is no statutory requirement as to mode or form of publication even then the Court would conceive the rule to be that publication of notification is necessary either in usual form-the official Gazette or through some other media generally adopted for notifying such notifications. “45. Learned Counsel for the respondent also referred us to the decision of the Bombay High Court in Imperator v. Leslie Gwilt(1) where the question of the proper construction and effect of rule 119 of the Defence of India Rules, 1937 came up for consideration. The learned Judges held that there had not been a proper publication or notification of an order, as required by rule 119 and that in consequence the accused could not be prosecuted for a violation of that order. Other decisions of a like nature dealing with the failure to comply with the requirements of rule 119 of the Defence of India Rules or the Essential Supplies Act, or the Essential Commodities Act, were also brought to our notice but we consider that they do not assist us in the present appeal. Where there is a statutory requirement as to the mode or form of publication and they are such that, in the circumstances, the Court holds to be mandatory, a failure to comply with those requirements might result in there being no effective order the contravention of which could be the subject of prosecution but where there is no statutory requirement we conceive the rule to be that it is necessary that it should be published in. the usual form i.e., by publication within the country in such media as generally adopted to notify to all the persons concerned the making of rules. In most of the Indian statutes, including the Act now under 4 AIR 1965 SC 722 15 2025:HHC:20639 consideration, there is provision for the rules made being published in the Official Gazette. It therefore stands to reason that publication in the Official Gazette viz., the Gazette of India is the ordinary method of bringing a rule or subordinate legislation to the notice of the persons concerned. As we have stated earlier, the notification by the Reserve Bank was published in the Gazette of India on November 24, 1962, and hence even adopting the view of Bailhache, J. the notification must be deemed to have been published and brought to the notice of the concerned individuals on November 25, 1962. The argument, therefore, that the notification, dated November 8, 1962 was not effective, because it was not properly published in the sense of having been brought to the actual notice of the respondent must be rejected.” The office letter dated 10.02.2022 pertained to financial aspects/15% enhancement/monthly pay admissible to Government employee for coming over to the Revised Pay Scales 2022. It had serious implications towards monthly salary of the Government employees. If the grant of benefits flowing under the office letter was dependent upon exercise of option by the employees, the same was required to be published in accordance with law/brought to notice of employees through some reasonable & accepted means. Merely saying that letter was in some ‘public domain’ is not enough to dispense with the requirement of bringing it to the notice of Government employees for whose benefit it was issued. Respondents have not even pleaded as to through which ‘public domain’ the letter was published. During hearing of the case, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the letter was available on the website of one of the respondents. The letter is neither a statutory rule nor a notification but has financial implications for a Government employee, merely displaying it on some website of some respondents, in the given facts would not discharge the burden of publishing it through accepted reasonable modes. The only logical inference is that respondents have not brought the office letter dated 10.02.2022 to the notice of the Government employees in accordance with law. Decision of the respondents in rejecting 16 2025:HHC:20639 petitioner’s representation dated 31.01.2023 on the ground that the petitioner had sought benefit of office letter dated 10.02.2022 beyond the time- lines fixed for availing option under Rule 6 (1) of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022 cannot be accepted.” 4(iv). It may also be noticed that the respondents have not disputed about petitioner having been posted in the field at the time of issuance of office orders dated 13.04.2022 and 08.07.2022. Therefore, petitioner’s plea of being not aware of the said office orders assumes significance. It will be in place to take into consideration the relevant pleadings from the petition in this regard, wherein, the petitioner has pleaded that he was not aware of existence of office order dated 08.07.2022 or that he was supposed to exercise an option under the said office order latest by 12.10.2022. That he was posted in the headquarter of the respondent-Board in January, 2023 and few months later, became aware of the disparity in his pay vis-à-vis his juniors, whereafter, he looked into the matter and came to know about the office orders and his juniors having opted to switch over to the revised pay scale pursuant to office orders dated 13.04.2022 & 08.07.2022. The petitioner had not exercised the option pursuant to the revision of pay scales under office orders dated 13.04.2022 17 2025:HHC:20639 & 08.07.2022 as he was not aware of his having been granted such opportunity. Relevant portion of the pleadings from the writ petition is as under:- “6. That it is most humbly submitted that subsequently, when the petitioner was transferred from HPSEB Electrical Division Arki, Sub-Division Darlaghat to the Board’s Headquarter at Shimla in the month of January, 2023, and the petitioner came to know that his counterparts were drawing higher pay as compared to him. The said disparity was only on account of the option exercised by the petitioner after the issuance of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited (Revised Pay) Regulations, 2022. After the issuance of the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited (Revised Pay) Regulations, 2022 the petitioner had opted for the multiplying factor of 2.59, which was beneficial to him at that point of time. The option exercised by the petitioner was to be revised after the issuance of office order dated 08.07.2022 and the same could not be exercised by the petitioner in view of the fact that it was not within his knowledge that any such revised option has been sought by the respondent- Board. The reason for not exercising the revised option and not opting for the revised pay structure by 15% hike was obvious that the petitioner was serving in field and was never made personally aware with regard to exercise of any such revised option. 7. That it is respectfully submitted that when the petitioner came to know about the fact that consequent upon the issuance of office order dated 08.07.2022, he was to submit his revised option, petitioner initially took up the matter with the respondent-authorities verbally. When nothing needful in the matter was done, the petitioner was constrained to prefer a representation to respondent No.1 on 2nd May, 2024, stating therein that on the revision of the pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.2016, he had exercised the option to switch over to the revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2016 by opting for the multiplying factor of 2.59. It was also brought to the notice of respondent No.1 by the petitioner that after the issuance of office order dated 08.07.2022, the petitioner could not exercise the revised option of 15% hike from the date of his promotion as Senior Assistant w.e.f. 18 2025:HHC:20639 01.05.2017 within the stipulated period for the reason that the order regarding revised pay band was not in his knowledge. It was further submitted by the petitioner in his representation that due to lack of knowledge, he was deprived of exercising the option of 15% hike and as a result of the same, his juniors, who exercised the option of 15% hike, are drawing more pay than him. The petitioner had requested respondent No.1 to consider his case sympathetically and allow him an opportunity of exercising the option of 15% hike w.e.f. 01.05.2017. The copy of the representation dated 02.05.2024, preferred by the petitioner to respondent No.1, is annexed herewith as Annexure-P3 for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.” The respondents in their reply have not specifically denied the above facts. In the attending circumstances, plea of delay & laches is not available to the respondents. 5. The sum total of above discussion is that the action of the respondents in rejecting petitioner’s representation and denying him an opportunity to opt for 15% enhancement under office orders dated 13.04.2022 & 08.07.2022 is illegal. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. Impugned decision of the respondents rejecting petitioner’s representation, as communicated by them in office letter dated 30.05.2024 (Annexure P-4) is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to re-fix the pay of the petitioner in terms of his option/request made vide Annexure P-3 and 19 2025:HHC:20639 in view of office orders dated 13.04.2022 & 08.07.2022 and take further action in accordance with law within four weeks from today. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 01, 2025 Judge Mukesh