pIN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 173 of 2024 Date of Decision: 04.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Anil Kumar …….Petitioner Versus H.P. Power Transmission Corporation Limited … Respondent ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Shubham Sood, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “(a) That a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or directions may kindly be issued quashing the impugned action of the respondents, whereby the respondents have deducted an amount of Contribution to EPF instead of actual pension (EPF) being received by the petitioner being patently illegal, arbitrary and against the terms and conditions on which the petitioner was appointed; (b) That a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions may kindly be issued directing the respondents to re-fix the pay of the petitioner after refunding the contribution as has been deducted from the last pay drawn by the petitioner and further in 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 pursuance to the pay revision, vide Notification dated 03.01.2022 and the respondents be directed to be pay the difference of pay as calculated w.e.f. 06.07.2020 till 31.12.2021 alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. the arrears be released @ 9% per annum.” 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, are that petitioner herein, after having served the Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited in the capacity of Senior Manager (F&A) and Deputy General Manager (F&A), superannuated on 31.12.2017. In the year 2019, respondent issued an advertisement dated 11.10.2019, inviting applications from the retired Officers against the posts of Deputy General Manager (P&A) and Senior Manager (Electrical). As per the terms and conditions prescribed in the advertisement, as detailed hereinabove, an incumbent appointed in pursuance to afore advertisement was to be given salary on the basis of last pay drawn at the time of retirement i.e. pay in the pay band plus grade pay at the time retirement i.e. pay in the pay band plus grade pay at the time of retirement minus pension/EPF, for which documentary proof was to be submitted. Petitioner herein, after completion of codal formalities, was offered appointment /re- employment as Deputy General Manager (P&A) in Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Shimla, vide order dated 17.06.2020 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner joined his duties as Deputy General 3 Manager (P&A) in the respondent-Corporation on 06.07.2020 and accordingly, his pay was fixed on the basis of last pay drawn at the time of retirement i.e., pay in the pay band plus grade pay at the time of retirement minus pension/EPF. On 03.01.2022, Government of Himachal Pradesh decided to revise the pay of its employees w.e.f. 01.01.2016, as a result whereof, last pay drawn of the petitioner also came to be enhanced. It is pertinent to take note of the fact that initially re-employment of the petitioner was only for one year, but subsequently it was further extended on the same terms and conditions, as a result thereof, his assignment came to an end on 31.12.2021. 3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that petitioner has been wrongly denied pay on the basis of his last pay drawn after the pay revision; and secondly, instead of deducting the pension being received through EPF, the entire contribution made by the petitioner has been deducted from the last pay drawn for the purpose of calculating the pay to be paid on his re-employment. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that since, after pay revision, the last pay drawn by the petitioner stood enhanced, he became entitled to pay in the Himachal Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation 4 Limited on the basis of his enhanced last pay drawn, but he was paid the pay in the respondent-Corporation on the basis of his pay in the pre-revised pay scale. He submitted that on account to pay revision, respondent was under obligation to pay the difference of pay arising out of the revision, as the petitioner was to be paid salary on the basis of his last pay drawn, which automatically stood increased pursuant to pay revision. 4. In support of his aforesaid contention, he invited attention of this Court to judgment dated 18.12.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.309 of 2024, titled as Sh. Munshi Ram Pathania versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, wherein in similar facts and circumstances, direction came to be issued to the respondents to pay the petitioner in that case differential amount of the pre-revision basic pay and revised pay from 10.06.2019 up to 10.06.2022, i.e. the period during which he remained re-employed. 5. Respondent, by way of reply, though have refuted the claim of the petitioner, but facts, as have been noticed hereinabove, have not been disputed. It is averred in the reply that contention of the petitioner that he was liable to be deducted the EPF pension of Rs.2990/- per month. It is submitted that as per advertisement dated 11.10.2019(Annexure P-1), the petitioner would get the monthly 5 salary on the basis of last pay drawn minus gross pension /EPF or minus EPF contribution by the Department and as such, petitioner was liable to deduction of EPF contribution by the department/ employer. Similarly, contention with regard to petitioner’s entitlement to the benefit of revised pay scale is concerned, it has been stated on behalf of the respondent that terms and conditions of advertisement dated 11.10.2019 (Annexure P-1), for availing the services of petitioner, clearly provided that he/she will get the monthly salary on the basis of last pay drawn minus gross pension/EPF or minus EPF and contribution by the department. He/she shall be entitled to the allowances and facilities as per HPPTCL pattern for the post for which he/ she is being re-employed. There will be no enhancement in the salary on re-employment. 6. Mr. Shubham Sood, learned counsel representing the respondent, while referring to letter dated 17.06.2020 (Annexure P-2), submitted that it was clearly stipulated that the salary shall be fixed based on the last pay drawn at the time of retirement, i.e. pay in the pay band plus grade pay at the time of retirement minus pension/EPF, for which documentary proof was to be submitted. He submitted that since there was a clear cut condition contained in the advertisement dated 11.10.2019 that there will be no enhancement in the salary on re-employment, petitioner’s claim for differential amount is totally 6 misconceived and deserves outright rejection. He further submitted that petitioner was engaged against a tenure based post and not a regular post, as condition No.2 of the offer letter dated 17.06.2020 (Annexure P-2), inter-alia stipulates that “the tenure of the engagement shall initially be for a period of one year, which can further be extended for one more year and if aforesaid clause is read in conjunction with the condition mentioned in advertisement dated 11.10.2019(Annexure P-1), which provides that he/she shall be entitled to the allowances and the facilities as per HPPTCL pattern for the post for which he/she is being re-employed and that there will be no enhancement in the salary on re-employment, the petitioner’s claim is devoid of merit. 7. 7. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material adduced on record, this Court finds that in terms of Annexure P-1, petitioner was re-employed on the last pay drawn minus gross pension/EPF or minus EPF contribution by the department and he was offered appointment against the post of Deputy General Manager(P&A) on 17.6.2020(Annexure P-2). The salary of the petitioner, on his re-employment, was to be fixed on the basis of last pay drawn at the time retirement i.e. pay in the pay band plus grade pay at the time of retirement i.e. pay in the pay band plus grade pay at the time of retirement minus pension/EPF, for which 7 documentary proof was to be submitted. The State Government itself took a decision in the year 2021 to revise the pay of its employees w.e.f. 01.01.2016, meaning thereby, the pay drawn by the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2016 till the date of his superannuation also stood revised. It is also not in dispute that the pay of the petitioner actually stands revised w.e.f. 01.01.2016, after the date of his superannuation. 8. Precisely, the question which needs to be determined in the case at hand is whether last pay drawn, as was taken into consideration while fixing the pay of the petitioner on account of re-employment as Deputy General Manager (P&A), shall also be deemed to have been revised for the purpose of fixation of salary. Since it is not in dispute that pursuant to notification issued in the year 2022, last pay drawn by the petitioner stood revised, salary of the petitioner for the period of re-employment is liable to be revised on the basis of revised last pay drawn. There is no condition in order dated 17.06.2020 that salary to be paid to the petitioner on re-employment on the basis of last pay drawn was on fixed emoluments, rather offer of appointment clearly provided that salary shall be fixed based on last pay drawn at the time of retirement. If it is so, on account of revision of last pay drawn w.e.f. 01.01.2016, petitioner is entitled to differential amount of the pre-revision basis pay and revised basic pay w.e.f. 17.06.2020 up to 31.12.2021. Though respondent could 8 have offered re-employment to the petitioner against the post in question on fixed emoluments, but yet it chose to fix the salary of the petitioner on re-employment on the basis of last pay drawn at the time of retirement. If it is so, there appears to be merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is entitled to differential amount for the period commencing from 17.06.2020 till his retirement from the post of Deputy General Manager (P&A) on 31.12.2021. 9. In similar facts and circumstances, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Munshi Ram’ case (supra) has held as under:- “6. The petitioner in terms of Annexure P-1, was reemployed on the last pay drawn, which was explained in terms of Annexure P-1 to be the pay in the pay band + grade pay being drawn at the time of retirement. It was the State Government which took a decision in the year 2021 to revise the pay scales of the employees, with effect from 01.01.2016. This means that the pay of the petitioner, which was drawn by him, with effect from 01.01.2016 up to the date of his superannuation, also stood revised. This is also not in dispute as learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the pay of the petitioner actually stands revised with effect from 01.01.2016 up to the date of his superannuation, though arrears are being paid in installments. 7. In the light of said development, as pursuant to the issuance of subsequent notification in the year 2022, which stands referred by me hereinabove, because the last pay drawn by the petitioner stood revised, obviously the salary of the petitioner for the period of re-employment, is liable to be 9 indemnified on the basis of the said revised last pay drawn. There is no condition in order dated 10.06.2019 that the salary to be paid to the petitioner on re-employment, on the basis of last pay drawn, was to be on fixed emoluments. Nothing prevented the respondents from specifying in the order of reemployment that the petitioner shall be entitled to a particular sum of amount, which is fixed. However, respondents did not do so. They rather offered re-employment on the last pay drawn, which fortuitously stood revised on account of the acts of the respondents themselves. 10. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly same is allowed. The respondent is directed to pay the petitioner differential amount of the pre-revision basic pay and revised basic pay from 17.06.2020 upto 31.12.2021 i.e. the period during which the petitioner was re- employed within a period of three months from today, failing which, respondent shall be liable to pay interest at the 6% per annum form the date of the judgment till its realization. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 04, 2025 (shankar)