IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Ex. Pet (T) No.22 of 2025 Decided on: 08.10.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Ravinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner seeks enforcement of Ravinder Singh Vs. State of H.P. and Ors2. According to the respondents, the said decision has been duly complied with by them. 2. Ravinder Singh2 was decided on 21.09.2022 with following operative directions:- “16. In view of above discussion, the petition deserves to be allowed and the order dated 07.11.2015 whereby the claim of petitioners was rejected is set aside. The respondents are directed to 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 CWPOA No.7322 of 2019, decided on 21.09.2022 - 2 - remove the pay anomaly of the petitioners by placing them at par with respondent No.3 w.e.f. 28.04.2012. Needless to say that, consequential benefits shall also follow. Petition is accordingly disposed of, so also, the pending application if any.” Pursuant to above, respondents issued office order on 09.05.2023 and removed the pay anomaly between the petitioner and respondent No.3 (in the writ petition) w.e.f. 28.04.2012. The pay of petitioner was brought at par with that of respondent No.3 as on 28.04.2012. The respondents accordingly complied with Ravinder Singh2. 3. Petitioner’s grievance is that even though the respondents had implemented Ravinder Singh2 by removing the anomaly between the pay drawn by the petitioner and the one drawn by respondent No.3 and brought it at par at one level as on 28.04.2012, however, the anomaly again cropped up w.e.f April/May 2023. The above has not been disputed by the respondents, however, reason for the fresh difference in the pay of the petitioner and respondent No.3 as on 01.04.2023 has been explained in para-3 of the reply as under:- “3. That in compliance to the aforesaid judgment dated 21.09.2022 passed by this Hon'ble High Court, the pay anomaly of the petitioner has correctly been removed by - 3 - placing him at par with the respondent No. 3 w.e.f. 28.04.2012 with all the consequential benefits vide office order dated 09.05.2023 (Annexure-R2). Further, it is respectfully submitted that the difference of pay of the petitioner and respondent No. 3 as on 01.04.2023 has arisen due to the different options exercised by them under FR-22(I)(a)(1) on their promotion as Deputy Director/Deputy Controller in the Pay Level-17. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Director/Deputy Controller on 18.05.2022 and opted to fix his pay under FR 22(1)(a)(1) from the date of his promotion. The copy of option exercised by the petitioner is placed as Annexure-R3 for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. Therefore, the pay of the petitioner was fixed accordingly as Rs.396900/ in the Pay Level-17 w.e.f. 18.05.2022 with date of next increment on 01.05.2023. Whereas, the respondent No. 3 was promoted to the post of Deputy /Director/Deputy Controller on 31.12.2022 (A/N) and opted to fix his pay under FR-22(I)(a)(1) from the date of his annual increment in the lower post w.e.f. 01.04.2023. The copy of option exercised by the respondent No. 3 is placed as Annexure-R4 for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. Therefore, the pay of the respondent No. 3 was fixed accordingly as Rs.294100/- in the Pay Level-17 w.e.f. 01.01.2023 and Rs. 799800/- w.e.f. 01.04.2023. Hence, the root cause of the difference in pay of the petitioner and respondent No. 3 as on 01.04.2023 is the different options exercised by them under FR-22(1)(a)(1) on their promotion as Deputy Director/Deputy Controller in the Pay Level-17. Therefore, the present Execution Petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed in the interest of justice.” - 4 - 4. In view of above stand, it is evident that the difference in the pay drawn by the petitioner and pay drawn by respondent No.3 w.e.f. the year 2023 is on account of different options exercised by them in their subsequent promotions. This aspect was neither in issue in Ravinder Singh2 nor it has been deliberated therein. Hence, the present execution petition is disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy for the redressal of his surviving grievances, if any, in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge October 08, 2025 R.Atal