IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4805 of 2024 with CWP Nos. 4806 to 4808 of 2024 Date of Decision:21.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 4805 of 2024 Ramesh Kumar …….Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 2. CWP No. 4806 of 2024 Mehar Chand …….Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 3. CWP No. 4807 of 2024 Jia Lal Hudden …….Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 4. CWP No. 4808 of 2024 Sunita Devi …….Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/ State. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Mr. Kulwant Singh Gill, Advocate vice Mr. Naveen Kumar Pathania, Advocate, for respondent No.3, in all the petitions. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the above captioned cases and similar relief has been prayed for, this Court, after clubbing all the cases together, heard them jointly and are being disposed of vide the common judgment. 2. Petitioners herein are aggrieved of order dated 21.10.2022 (Annexure P-8), whereby arrears on account of enhancement of monthly remuneration from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs.70, 000/- per month, came to be denied. 3. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that in the month of October, 2017, respondent No.3 issued an advertisement for hiring specialists/consultants in banking/ environment/social development and agri-business (Annexure P-2). Petitioners being fully eligible were called for interview on 30.11.2017 for the post of Social Development Specialist (Annexure P-3). Vide order dated 27.12.2017 (Annexure P-4) petitioners were appointed as Social Development Specialist (SDS) in Himachal Pradesh Horticulture 3 Development Project and as such, they joined on 08.01.2018, 09.01.2018, 02.01.2018 and 27.03.2018, respectively. Since there was pay anomaly, petitioners herein made representation dated 27.07.2021 to the Secretary Horticulture, which ultimately came to be forwarded to the Project Director. In the afore representation, petitioners claimed that since both the categories i.e. Social Development Specialist and Environment Safeguard Specialist are the same having identical nature of work, they should also be given fixed honorarium of Rs. 70,000/- per month instead of Rs. 50,000/-. The Executive Committee of the Horticulture Development Society in its 14th meeting under Item No.2 of the agenda decided to grant pay parity to the petitioners, but from prospective date (Annexure P-6). Pursuant to the recommendation made by Executive Committee of the Horticulture Development Society, Governing Council of the Horticulture Development Society in its 12th meeting held on 07.09.2024 ratified the decision of the Executive Council as regards the pay parity of the petitioners (Annexure P-7). 4. Pursuant to afore decision taken by the Governing Council, respondent No.3-Project Director issued office 4 memorandum dated 21.10.2022, thereby granting pay parity benefits, but prospectively and without arrears (Annexure P-8). 5. Being not satisfied with grant of pay parity benefits prospectively, petitioners alongwith similar situate persons made representation dated 21.11.2022 to respondent No.3, but no decision ever came to be taken upon the same and in the meantime, petitioners signed contract agreement with the respondent w.e.f.1st July, 2023 to 30th June, 2024, agreeing therein to work for the amount, which they were already in receipt of. On 05.01.2024, petitioners made fresh representation to the respondents for payment of same pay on account of pay parity as was being paid to the Environment Safeguard Specialists (Annexure P-10), but since decision was not taken upon the same as such, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main reliefs:- “(i) That the office memorandum dated 21.10.2022 (impugned Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.3 may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent that it has granted the benefit of pay parity to the petitioner prospectively and without arrears; (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the fixed monthly salary of 70,000/- per month 5 w.e.f.01.01.2018 with yearly percent increment as granted to the Environment Safeguard Specialists and grant all the actual benefits/arrears accrued to the petitioners on account of the same with interest of 9 percent till the date of actual realization.” 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 7. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have filed their reply separately, perusal whereof clearly reveals that Social Development Specialists and Environment Safeguard Specialists are the same, having identical nature of job and as such, Executive Council taking note of genuine grouse of the petitioners acceded to their request for grant of similar remuneration, as was being paid to the category of Environment Safeguard Specialists, but with prospective effect. Though, in terms of aforesaid order, remuneration of Rs. 50,000/- earlier being paid to the petitioners came to be enhanced to Rs. 70,000/-, but precisely the grouse of the petitioners, as has been highlighted in the petitions and further canvassed by Mr. Nishant Khidtta, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that while afore benefit was granted to the petitioners, they had already reached the salary of more than Rs. 70,000/- on account of yearly enhancements given to them, if it is so, petitioners herein should have been brought at par 6 with the category of Environment Safeguard Specialists, who at the relevant time, were getting salary of more than Rs. 1 lac per month. 8. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Kulwant Singh Gill, Advocate vice Mr. Naveen Kumar Pathania, Advocate, representing respondent Nos.1, 2 and respondent No.3, respectively vehemently argued that once it is not in dispute that in terms of decision taken by the Governing Council remuneration of Rs. 50,000/- being paid to the petitioners has been enhanced to Rs. 70,000/-, present petitions are not maintainable, rather deserve to be dismissed with cost. Learned counsel representing the respondents submit that after aforesaid decision of Governing Council, petitioner herein themselves entered into contract agreement with the respondents, thereby agreeing for remuneration of Rs. 70,000/-, if it is so, claim put forth by the petitioners deserve outright rejection. 9. However, both the learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Kulwant Singh Gill, Advocate vice Mr. Naveen Kumar Pathania, Advocate, are unable to dispute that at the time of decision made by the Governing Council , thereby agreeing to pay parity with the categories, category of Environment Safeguard Specialists was already in receipt of remuneration more than Rs. 1 lac per month on account of the fact that amount agreed to be paid to them, at the time 7 of their initial appointment was subsequently enhanced pursuant to yearly increments. However, at the time of granting pay parity to the category of the petitioners, petitioners were given honorarium of Rs. 70,000/-, which they were already in receipt of on account of fact that their initial honorarium of Rs. 50,000/- had been further enhanced to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- on account of various increments. 10. Once Executive Council had decided to give pay parity to the category of the petitioners, petitioners herein should have given same amount, as was being received by the category of Environment Safeguard Specialists on relevant dates. Now though by enhancing the honorarium of the petitioners from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 70,000/-, attempt has been made to demonstrate that honorarium to the category of the petitioners has been brought at par with the category of Environment Safeguard Specialists, but fact remains that category of Environment Safeguard Specialists, especially on account of repeated revision, is already in receipt of more than Rs. One lac per month. Since category of Environment Safeguard Specialist was getting Rs. 70,000/- from 01.01.2018, petitioners herein in light of decision taken by the Executive Council, which further came to be ratified by the Governing Council, ought to have been extended same benefits from the date such benefits was granted to the Environment Safeguard Specialists i.e. 2018, if it is so, for all intents and 8 purposes honorarium payable to the category of the petitioners could not have been less than the amount, which at the relevant time was being received by the category of Environment Safeguard Specialists. 11. Though, at this stage, learned counsel representing respondent No.3 attempted to argue that project, which was being funded by World Bank stands closed and as such, relief otherwise prayed for cannot be granted, however, such plea of him has been seriously refuted by learned counsel for the petitioners, who while referring to Annexure R-2 annexed with the reply filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, states that vide communication dated 01.07.2024 (Annexure R-2), Project Director, HPHDP, submitted that Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Development Project was granted an extension for an additional four months i.e. upto 31st October 2024 by DEA, Government of India and the World Bank and in afore background, afore authority specifically called upon all the Nodal Officers of the respective departments to ensure smooth closure of the project, but with specific condition that no liabilities remain outstanding by the end of the project period and therefore, all nodal officers shall fix weekly milestones and review them strictly. 12. Since vide aforesaid order dated 01.07.2024, Project Director had called upon all the Nodal Officers of the respective departments to ensure that no liabilities remain outstanding by the 9 end of project period, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents at this stage to claim that project stands closed and such amount to which otherwise petitioners are eligible cannot be granted. Moreover, Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Development Project was granted an extension for an additional four months i.e. upto 31st October, 2024 by DEA, Government of India and the World Bank, if is so, claim of the petitioners, if any, accrued prior to afore date of 31st October, 2024 cannot be permitted to be defeated on the ground that project funded by World Bank has been closed. Though, communication dated 01.07.2024 indicates that project stands closed, but specific direction has been issued by the project Director to ensure that no liabilities remain outstanding by the end of project period. Since liabilities, if any, of the respondents to pay the amount on account of pay parity approved by Executive Council, which further came to be upheld by Government Council pertains to the period prior to 31st October, 2024, rightful claim of the petitioners cannot be permitted to be defeated on the ground of closure of project . 13. Consequently, in view of the above, present petitions is allowed and impugned order dated 21.10.2022(Annexure P-8) is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to give similar honorarium as was being paid to the category of Environment Safeguard Specialists, but from the date such decision came to be 10 taken by the Executive Council i.e. 01.01.2018. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 21, 2025 (shankar)