IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11864 of 2025 Decided on: 24th July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bhavna Kumari …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Rajat Choudhry, learned Assistant Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. Considering the order impugned herein passed by respondent No.2, decision rendered in Mohit Sharma & Anr. Versus State of H.P. & Ors.2 and the order being passed hereinafter, there is no necessity to call for reply from the respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024 2 3. Bhavna Kumari Versus State of H.P. and others3 was disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of higher pay after completion of two years of regular service from the due date alongwith consequential benefits in accordance with law and taking into consideration the decision rendered in Mohit Sharma2. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, respondent No.2 passed a speaking order on 28.05.2025 (Annexure P-9), rejecting the case of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was appointed as TGT (Arts) on contract basis on 20.11.2019 and her services were regularized on 25.04.2022. The petitioner does not fulfill the condition of completion of two years of contract service as on 30.09.2021, whereas, Mohit Sharma with whom the petitioner is seeking parity, had completed two years of contractual service as on 30.09.2021. 4. The reasoning assigned in the impugned office order for rejecting the case of the petitioner does not appear to be in consonance with Mohit Sharma2, more particularly, para 4(iii) thereof, which reads as under:- “4(iii). It is not the case of the respondents that notification dated 03.01.2022 or the Revised Pay Rules, 2022, 3 CWP No.256 of 2025, decided alongwith connected matter on 04.01.2025 3 brought in force thereunder, are not to be made applicable to employees, who attain regular status after 03.01.2022. Irrespective of his previous nature of employment contractual/temporary etc., upon regularization of service, the employee becomes part of regular stream. With this change in his status, such employee becomes entitled to the benefit of Revised Pay Rules, 2022. Benefits of Revised Pay Rules, 2022, cannot be denied to the employees merely because they acquired the status of regular employees after promulgation of Revised Pay Rules. The date of notifying the Revised Pay Rules and bringing them into force from a particular date cannot be construed to mean that those who attain regular status subsequently are to be denied the benefits of higher/revised pay. Of course, such employees would get the benefit post their regularization. The Revised Pay Rules, 2022, restrict their applicability to regular employees. Therefore, the petitioners on becoming regular employees, upon fulfillment of conditions mentioned in the Rules are certainly entitled to higher stage of pay mentioned in the Rules. Any other interpretation would amount to creating classes within regular stream. Such differentiation would be discriminatory, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. There cannot be two pay scales in the same cadre for persons discharging same duties & responsibilities. Equals cannot be treated as unequal.” It is evident that while passing the impugned office order, respondent No.2 has not considered the ratio of the decision in Mohit Sharma2. For that reason alone, the impugned office order dated 28.05.2025 (Annexure P-9) is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the decision in Mohit Sharma2 within a period of three weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. 4 The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 24, 2025 Judge Mukesh