IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.12918 of 2025 Decided on: 11.08.025 _________________________________________________________________ Rajesh Kumar & Anr ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ________________________________________________________________ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. Looking to the impugned order, grievances of the petitioners and the basis for assailing the impugned order, reply to the writ petition is not required to be called for, from the respondents. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - 2. Petitioners had instituted Rajesh Kumar & Anr Vs. State of H.P. and Ors2, seeking higher pay scale on the strength of decision rendered in Mohit Sharma and Anr. Vs. State of H.P. and others3. Writ petition was disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in light of Mohit Sharma3 and pass order in accordance with law within six weeks. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.2 passed office order on 25.07.2025 (Annexure P-6) and held that the petitioners were not similarly situated and were not covered by Mohit Sharma3, hence their case was rejected. 3. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have preferred this writ petition. 4. Heard and considered the case file. While rejecting the cases of the petitioners, respondent No.2 has held that:- Petitioners had not completed two years of contractual service up to 30.09.2021; The Revised Pay Scale Rules 2022, notified by the State of 2 CWP No. 2359 of 2025, decided on 27.03.2025 3 CWP No. 1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024. - 3 - H.P., were applicable to the persons appointed on regular basis to the services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State of Himachal Pradesh; Since the petitioners had not been appointed on regular basis up to 30.09.2021, decision in Mohit Sharma3 was not applicable to them. It appears that respondent No.2, while rejecting the case of the petitioners, has not considered the decision in Mohit Sharma3 in proper perspective, which inter-alia, holds that irrespective of employee’s 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. Some extracts - 4 - from the decision, relevant to the context, are extracted hereinafter:- “4(iii). It is not the case of the respondents that notification dated 03.01.2022 or the Revised Pay Rules, 2022, 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. 4(iv). Rule 7(A) inserted by amendment in the Revised Pay Rules, 2022, under the amendment notification dated 06.09.2022 has become part & parcel of the Revised Pay Rules, 2022, notified on 03.01.2022. Therefore, when the main Rules do not discriminate employees upon their acquiring regular - 5 - status and are applicable to all regular employees subject to their respective & individual dates of attaining the eligibility for the benefits flowing from Revised Pay Rules, 2022, then the benefits of Rule 7(A) are also to be similarly accorded to the regular employees. Such of the employees, who have become regular after 03.01.2022 are to get benefits of the Revised Pay Rules, 2022, including Rule 7(A) upon their fulfilling the stipulated conditions. Thus, the petitioners on completing two years of regular service are to be released revised pay scale as per Rule 7(A) of the Revised Pay Rules, 2022. 4(v). Even if Rule 7(A) of the Revised Pay Rules, 2022, is to be read independently of the Revised Pay Rules, 2022, which seems to be the misplaced contention of the State, then also the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Rule 7(A). As in such situation also, it has to be held that Rule 7(A) does not place any embargo upon flow of benefits under it to the contractual employees, more so, upon their completing two years of regular service. The words used in Rule 7(A) pertaining to its applicability are “employees who are appointed before 03.01.2022,” without making any distinction between contractual or regular appointment. Petitioners are appointees prior to 03.01.2022. Revised Pay Rules, 2022, therefore, become applicable upon regularization of contractual appointees and higher stage of pay provided under Rule 7(A) is to be released upon completing requisite number of years of regular service.” In the instant case, the impugned order itself acknowledges in the table drawn therein that all the petitioners had completed two years of continuous contract services in October, 2021. Their services were regularized in April, 2022. This aspect has been overlooked by the respondents while passing consideration order - 6 - Prima-facie, it appears that cases of the petitioners are covered by Mohit Sharma3, however, factual aspects are required to be examined by the competent authority. Hence, impugned office order dated 25.07.2025 (Annexure P-6) is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. Respondent No.2/Competent Authority is directed to consider and decide the respective cases of the petitioners for grant of benefits under the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 2022, strictly in consonance with Mohit Sharma3 and in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from today. The order so passed, be also communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge August 11, 2025 R.Atal