( 2025:HHC:8538 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No. 1095 of 2020 along with CWPOA No. 1088 and 1197 of 2020. Reserved on : 20 th March, 2025. Decided on : 1 st April, 2025. 1. CWPOA No. 1095 of 2020. Roshan Lal ...Petitioner. Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation ....Respondents. 2. CWPOA No. 1088 of 2020. Som Lal ...Petitioner. Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation ....Respondents. 3. CWPOA No. 1197 of 2020. Bharat Bhushan ...Petitioner. Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner(s): Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:8538 ) Satyen Vaidya, Judge. All these petitions have been heard and are being decided together as common questions of facts and law are involved. 2. Petitioners in CWPOA No. 1095 of 2020 and CWPOA No. 1197 of 2020 are the retired Chief Inspectors from respondent- Himachal Road Transport Corporation (for short “Corporation”), who have retired w.e.f 30.10.2013 and 30.04.2015 respectively. 3. Petitioner in CWPOA No. 1088 of 2020 is the retired Inspector of the corporation, who stood retired w.e.f. 30.06.2014. 4. The corporation revised pay scales of certain categories of its employees vide office order dated 22.10.2011. The post of Chief Inspector was placed in the pay scale of Rs.10300-34800+3800 Grade Pay. The category of Inspector was left out and no revision in the pay scale of such category was ordered. 5. The corporation on 24.10.2013 again revised the pay scales of 28 categories of its employees and this time neither the post of Chief Inspector nor of Inspector was included. 3 ( 2025:HHC:8538 ) 6. On 22.12.2015, an office order was issued by the corporation whereby the pay scales of Inspectors and Chief Inspectors were revised w.e.f. 01.08.2015. The Inspectors were placed in the pay scale of Rs.10300-34800+3800 Grade Pay and Chief Inspectors were placed in the pay scale of Rs.10300-34800+4200 Grade Pay. 7. The petitioners in CWPOA Nos. 1095 of 2020 and 1097 of 2020 have raised grievance against the non inclusion of their category in the pay revision order dated 24.10.2013 and also against the prospective operation of office order dated 22.12.2015. The petitioner in CWPOA No.1088 of 2020 is aggrieved against non inclusion of his category in the pay revision orders dated 22.11.2011 and 24.10.2013. In addition, he has also shown grievance against prospective operation of pay revision order dated 22.12.2015. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully. 9. Admittedly, the petitioners did not lay any challenge to their non inclusion in the pay revision order dated 24.10.2013 before their retirement. Similarly, petitioner in CWPOA No. 1088/2020 had not taken any exception to the pay revision order dated 22.10.2011. 4 ( 2025:HHC:8538 ) 10. The grant of pay revision by an employer is the subject within its administrative domain. The judicial review of such administrative action is extremely restrictive. It can be exercised only in those exceptional cases where the administrative action is established to be arbitrary and against the mandate of law. 11. The employee has no right to claim revision of pay scale unless he establishes the violation of right of equality. In the case in hand, in none of the petition, any factual foundation has been laid to make out a case of arbitrariness or discrimination. 12. The pay revision order dated 22.12.2015 has been issued after the retirement of petitioners and its application was made w.e.f. 01.08.2015. On such date, the petitioner were not in the service of corporation and hence their claim on the basis of said office order cannot sustain. Petitioners also cannot seek the enforcement of said order from retrospective date as they have not again been able to make out a case of discrimination or arbitrariness. Equals have been treated equally. The petitioner have also not placed on record any material to show that the corporation has treated any similarly situated persons differently. 5 ( 2025:HHC:8538 ) 13. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment passed by a coordinate bench of this Court on 03.05.2023 in CWPOA No. 2507 of 2019, titled as Nank Chand & Ors. vs. State of H.P. & Ors., and on its basis he has contended that in similar situation, the benefit of pay revision was granted to the employees of education department retrospectively. 14. After going through the judgment, I am of considered view that petitioners cannot claim any benefit from said judgment as the facts in both cases are quite different. In Nank Chand’s case (supra) vide notification dated 27.09.2012, issued in exercise of powers under Rule 9 of the H.P. Civil Services (category/Post wise Revised Pay) Rules, 2012, 19 categories/posts belonging to education department were allowed pay revision w.e.f. 01.10.2012. The said notification did not include the category/post of DPE. Their inclusion in the aforesaid notification dated 27.09.2012 was made by subsequent order dated 01.11.2014 and DPEs were allowed the benefit of pay revision prospectively w.e.f. 01.11.2014. While adjudicating the grievance of the DPEs, the coordinate bench of this Cout has held that since the category/post of DPEs was included in the same notification dated 27.09.2012, they cannot be discriminated vis-a-vis the 6 ( 2025:HHC:8538 ) other beneficiaries of said notification. The facts of instant case are different. Herein, the category of petitioners were excluded from pay revision in the notifications issued from time to time and the corporation had not included any incumbent from the categories of Inspector and Chief Inspector for the benefit of pay revision from back date. In fact, the pay revision order dated 22.12.2015 came to be issued much after the retirement of petitioners. The operation of this notification was made prospective w.e.f. 01.08.2015 on which date all the petitioners already stood retired. 15. In result, there is no merit in these petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 1st April, 2025. (jai)