( 2025:HHC:31350 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No.3359 of 2019 along with CWPOA No. 6375 of 2019. Decided on: 11 th September, 2025. 1. CWPOA No. 3359 of 2019. Narender Walia & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus HRTC & Ors. ....Respondents. 2. CWPOA No. 6375 of 2019. Kamal Dev Sharma ...Petitioners. Versus HRTC & Anr. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate and Dr. Nidhi Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. B.N. Sharma, Advocate with Ms. Mamta, Advocate, for respondents in CWPOA No. 3359 of 2019 and Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, for respondents in CWPOA No. 6375 of 2019. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). Both these petitions have been heard and are being decided together as common questions of fact and law have arisen. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:31350 ) 2. In CWPOA No. 3359 of 2019, petitioner No.2 Des Raj was initially appointed as Class-IV in the respondent corporation w.e.f. 01.09.1989. He was promoted as Clerk in February, 1996 and was further placed as Junior Assistant w.e.f. 01.01.2005. Petitioners No.1, 3 and 4 in CWPOA No. 3359 of 2019 were directly recruited as Clerks in the years 1990, 1996 and 1994 respectively. Petitioners No.1 and 3 were in the category of Junior Assistant w.e.f. 01.01.2005 and 1.07.2007 respectively. 3. Petitioner Kamal Dev Sharma in CWPOA No. 6375 of 2019 was initially appointed as Class-IV on 7.02.1985 and was promoted as Clerk in the year 1996 and was further placed in the category of Junior Assistant w.e.f 06.07.2007. 4. Thus, petitioner No.2 in CWPOA No. 3359 of 2019 and CWPOA No. 6375 of 2019 were promoted as Clerks and then placed as Junior Assistant, whereas all other petitioners in CWPOA No. 3359 of 2019 were directly recruited as Clerks and then placed in the category of Junior Assistants. 5. Petitioners are aggrieved against the amendment carried in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Senior Assistant in HRTC w.e.f. 15.02.2011. The amended Clause-11 of R&P Rules for the post of Senior Assistant reads as under:- 3 ( 2025:HHC:31350 ) “By promotion from amongst common clerical cadre of Clerks/Junior Assistants with ten years regular service or regular combined with continuous adhoc in the cadre . Provided that those Clerks who have been promoted from amongst the Class-IV employees or appointed on compassionate grounds having the Matric Pass or Matric in English only and Hindi Rattan Pass appointed or promoted shall not be promoted to the post of Senior Assistant unless they possesses the essential qualification viz. 10+2 as prescribed for direct recruitment after the circulation of Govt. instructions vide H.P. Govt. Letter No. Per (AP-C)-A-(3)/2007 dated 14.08.2008.” 6. The grievance raised by the petitioners is that the amendment as carried in the R&P Rules for the post of Senior Assistant has been wrongly applied to them. 7. Petitioners who were directly recruited as Clerks contend that they are not covered by the amendment at all as the amendment related only to those Clerks who were promoted from lower category of Class-IV. 8. It is also the case of the petitioners that the impugned amendment was carried in the R&P Rules for the post of Senior Assistant on the basis of Office Memorandum dated 14.08.2008 issued by the Secretary Personnel, Government of Himachal Pradesh, which did not pertain to the category of those promotee Clerks who stood promoted even before the issuance of the office memorandum dated 14.08.2008. On this premise, petitioner who are promotee 4 ( 2025:HHC:31350 ) Clerks have alleged that the amendment in the R & P Rules cannot be read by enlarging the scope of Office Memorandum dated 14.08.2008. 9. On the other hand, Mr. B.N. Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, representing the respondent corporation have supported the amendment on the grounds; firstly, that the respondent corporation was competent to carry amendment being employer and secondly, the amendment so carried was completely in consonance with the Office Memorandum dated 14.08.2008. 10. Having considered rival submission and the record, I am of the view that the petitioners have been able to make out a case for themselves. 11. The plain reading of the amendment carried to Clause-11 of the Rules to the post of Senior Assistant, as reproduced above, makes it clear that it covered only the cases of Clerks who did not possess 10+2 qualification and had been promoted from amongst the Class-IV employees or appointed on compassionate ground with Matric or Matric in English and Hindi Rattan qualifications after 14.08.2008 when Office Memorandum was issued. The bar to be promoted to the post of Senior Assistant without clearing 10+2 qualification was meant for such category only. 5 ( 2025:HHC:31350 ) 12. The perusal of office memorandum dated 14.08.2008 also reveals that the decision of the State Government was only in respect of those Clerks who were to be appointed on the basis of direct recruitment after issuance of said office memorandum and also to those Clerks who were to be promoted from Class IV category thereafter. 13. Neither the category of those Clerks who were directly appointed before 14.08.2008 or who stood promoted therebefore were included in the office memorandum dated 14.08.2008. 14. Admittedly, petitioners belong to the category either of those Clerks who were appointed directly as Clerks before 14.08.2008 or stood promoted to the said post from Class-IV prior to the date of issuance of Office Memorandum. 15. Indisputably, respondent corporation has not exempted the petitioners from operation of the amended Clase-11 of the R& P Rules for the post of Senior Assistant. As a consequence thereof, the petitioners were not promoted as Senior Assistants from the due date when their immediate juniors were promoted, simply because they had not qualified the requisite qualification of 10+2 and were matriculates only. 6 ( 2025:HHC:31350 ) 16. As noticed above, neither the office memorandum dated 14.08.2008 nor the amended Clause-11 of the R& P Rules were meant for the categories held by the petitioners. The amendment to the R&P Rules has admittedly been carried on the basis of Office Memorandum dated 14.08.2008, as has also been specifically mentioned in the amendment itself. Thus, the respondent corporation having carried amendment to R&P Rules on the basis of Office Memorandum dated 14.08.2008 cannot be allowed to canvass the scope of said amendment to be larger than the intent and import of Office Memorandum dated 14.08.2008. 16. In result, petitions are allowed. Office order dated 06.12.2014 (Annexure P-9) in CWPOA No. 3359 of 2019 and office order dated 06.12.2014 (Annexure P-8) in CWPOA No. 6375 of 2019 are quashed and set aside. It is held that the amendment dated 15.02.2011 carried to the R& P Rules for the post of Senior Assistant in the respondent corporation is not applicable to the petitioners. Petitioners are held entitled to be promoted as Senior Assistants from the date their immediate juniors were respectively promoted. They shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits. Petitions are accordingly disposed of with further direction to the 7 ( 2025:HHC:31350 ) respondent corporation to complete the entire process to implement this judgment within 12 weeks from today. 18. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 11th September, 2025. (jai)