( 2025:HHC:23245 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.11520, 11523, 11526 & 11530 of 2025 Decided on: 18.07. 2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 11520/2025 Praveen Kumar Gupta ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors …Respondents 2. CWP No. 11523/2025 Arvind Negi ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors …Respondents 3. CWP No. 11526/2025 Yogesh Sharma ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors …Respondents 4. CWP No. 11530/2025 Brij Lal ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes ( 2025:HHC:23245 ) - 2 - For the petitioner(s): Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent(s): Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Sikander Bhushan, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioners’ grievance is to the office order dated 22.02.2025, whereby the Director Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh considered the respective cases of the petitioners in terms of judgments rendered in Praveen Kumar Gupta2, Arvind Negi3, Yogesh Sharma4, and Brij Lal5 Vs. State of H.P. and Others. Present petitioners were the petitioners in the aforesaid case. In terms of the judgments, respondents were directed to consider the individual representations of the petitioners for the redressal of their grievances in accordance with law. 3. Petitioner(s) had also preferred their respective 2 CWP No. 362/2025, decided on 06.01.2025 3 CWP No. 366/2025 decided on 07.01.025 4 CWP No. 364/2025 decided on 7.01.2025 5 CWP No. 358/2025 decided on 06.01.2025 ( 2025:HHC:23245 ) - 3 - representation(s) seeking grant of progression under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS). The Director Higher Education, rejected petitioners’ representations on the ground that decision rendered in Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of HP and Ors6 has been assailed before the Hon’ble Apex Court and also on the ground that benefit under the new ACPS cannot be allowed to the petitioners by ignoring the benefit of re-revision 2012 as per the instructions/directions of the Government. Relevant portion of the impugned order is as follows: - “And Whereas the Government vide letter No. Fin(PR)B(7)-59/2010 dated 7.7.2014, directed that once an employee has already got three enhancements/financial up- gradations i.e. grant of progression under new or old Assured Career Progression Scheme, or promotion or any other enhancement directed that once an employee has already got three enhancements/financial up-gradations ie. grant of in his entire service career, thereafter he will not be entitled for placement in next higher grade pay in the new Assured Career Progression Scheme introduced vide FD's instructions dated 9.8.2012. The Director Elementary Education Himachal Pradesh has agitated the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court in CWPOA No. 5536/2020 in OA No. 6803/2012 titled as Sanjay Kumar V/s State of HP and others and filed SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Now therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in compliance to the Hon'ble High Court 6 CWPOA No.5536 of 2020, decided alongwith connected matters on 01.11.2023 ( 2025:HHC:23245 ) - 4 - order in CWP No. 362/2025. The representation of petitioner has been perused and it has been found that the 9 years benefit under new Assured Career Progression Scheme cannot be allowed by ignoring the benefit of re-revision 2012 as per latest instruction/ direction of Government. Hence, the representations is considered and rejected.” 4. The impugned order passed by the Director Higher Education is absolutely in breach of the decision rendered in Sanjay Kumar6. The question for determination before the Hon’ble Division Bench in Sanjay Kumar6 was as to whether pay revision or grant of Grade Pay vide order dated 01.10.2012 can be termed to be a financial upgradation so as to deny the financial upgradation under ACPS. Whether, benefit of 14 years of service under the new ACPS can be denied on account of enhancement of Grade Pay under the Government Order (Pay Revision) effected on 01.10.2012. Hon’ble Division Bench on the basis of circular dated 07.07.2014 held that annual increment or general pay revision shall not be considered as financial upgradation for the purpose of benefit, if any, under the new ACPS. Consequently, the Court found merit in the claim of the petitioners that they are entitled to the benefit of 3rd financial upgradation on their completing 14 years of service despite ( 2025:HHC:23245 ) - 5 - receiving the enhancement of Grade Pay under the Government Order dated 01.10.2012. Relevant observations and conclusion drawn in the aforesaid judgment are as under: - “7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that as of today, two benefit of financial upgradation already stands granted to the petitioners in terms of new ACP scheme and dispute is only with regard to entitlement, if any, of the petitioner for third benefit after 14 years of service. Third benefit under new ACP scheme is sought to be denied to the petitioners on the ground that on account of enhancement of grade pay vide government order dated 1.10.2012 pay of the petitioners has been already enhanced and same in terms of order dated 26.2.2013 issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh is to be treated as financial enhancement for the purpose of granting benefit under 8-16-24- 32 and 4-9-14 ACP scheme. Much reliance has been placed on communication dated 26.2.2013 issued by Government of Himachal Pradesh, whereby it came to be clarified that grade pay granted vide order 1.10.2012 shall be treated as financial enhancement for the purpose of granting benefit under 8-16-24-32 and 4-9-14 ACP scheme. 8….. 9. Now question which needs to be determined in the instant proceedings as to “whether pay revision or grant of grade pay vide order dated 1.10.2012 can be termed to be a financial upgradation so as to deny the ( 2025:HHC:23245 ) - 6 - benefit of financial upgradation under ACPS. 10. Careful perusal of communication dated 7th July 2014 whereby old ACP scheme came to be replaced by new ACPS, clearly reveals that annul increment or general pay revision shall not be considered as financial upgradation for the purpose of benefit, if any, under ACPS. If it is so, there appears to be merit in the claim of the petitioners that they are entitled to the benefit of third financial upgradation after their having completed 14 years of service. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of para-5 of the afore letter, which reads as under:- “Moreover, the overriding objective on an assured career progression scheme is to ensure at least three financial up- gradations/ enhancements/ promotions to a regular employee in his entire service career. Therefore, in partial modification of earlier orders on ACP schemes it is directed that, once an employee has already got three enhancements / financial upgradations i.e. grant of progression under the new or old ACPS or promotion or any other financial enhancement except the annual increment or the general pay revision based on the pay commission, in fourteen years or more his/her entire service., thereafter, he will not be entitled for placement in next higher grade pay in the ACPS Scheme introduced vide FD’s instructions dated 9th August 2012. However, it is clarified that after availing three enhancements / upgradation/ promotion, an employee will be eligible to take the benefit of normal promotions available in his service career.” 11. Careful perusal of aforesaid instructions clearly reveals that an employee is granted three enhancements/ upgradations/promotion, he/she shall not be eligible for grant of further benefit, if any, under ACPS, but in the case at hand, petitioners after being appointed as JBT though were given two benefits of financial upgradation under ACPS, first benefit was granted under old ACPS after their having completed eight years service, whereas second benefit was granted in their favour after their having completed nine years service under new ACPS and third ( 2025:HHC:23245 ) - 7 - benefit in terms of new ACPS, for which petitioners have already opted, is being denied on the ground that vide order dated 26.02.2013 grade pay of the petitioners has been enhanced w.e.f. 1.10.2012. However, as observed hereinabove, financial upgradation, if any, on account of pay revision/revision of grade pay cannot be a ground to deny benefit of financial upgradations under ACPS, which become due after completion of four, nine and fourteen years as per new ACPS. Though, it has been vehemently argued on behalf of the respondents/State that grade pay of the petitioners was enhanced, as a result of which, their pay was enhanced, but as has been taken note above, financial enhancement on account of annual increment or general pay revision, based on pay commission, is not to be considered while considering the case of an employee for grant of benefit of ACPS. Since, in the case at hand pay of the petitioners came to be enhanced on account of grant of grade pay, benefit of financial upgradation in terms of provision contained under ACPS cannot be denied.” It is not the case of the respondents that decision in Sanjay Kumar6 has been stayed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Learned Deputy Advocate General fairly states that the respondents have taken a policy decision to implement the decision rendered in Sanjay Kumar6 subject to outcome of the SLP filed by them. That being the position, it is beyond comprehension as to why respondents have passed the impugned order, rejecting the case of the petitioner for reasons, which have already been turned down in Sanjay ( 2025:HHC:23245 ) - 8 - Kumar6. It was not open for the respondent-the Director Higher Education, H.P. to sit over the decision in Sanjay Kumar6. 5. In view of above, the impugned order dated 22.02.2025 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to consider the respective representation(s) of the petitioner(s) afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the decision rendered in Sanjay Kumar6 within three weeks. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the ending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge July 18, 2025 rohit