1 2025:HHC:17288 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 2489 of 2018 a/w connected matters Date of decision: 28.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 2489 of 2018 State of Himachal Pradesh …..Petitioner Versus Suresh Chand Heer & others ...Respondents ______________________________________________________ 2. CWPOA No. 2719 of 2020 Anju Bala ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & another ...Respondents. ______________________________________________________ 3. CWPOA No.4042 of 2020 Maina Devi ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents. _______________________________________________________ 4. CWPOA No. 5875 of 2020 Santosh Kumar ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents. _______________________________________________________ 5. CWPOA No. 6834 of 2020 2 Vinod Kumar & others ….Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents. ______________________________________________________ 6. CWP No. 86 of 2021 Pawan Kumar & others ….Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents. ______________________________________________________ 7. CWP No.6972 of 2021 State of H.P. & others ….Petitioners Versus Kavita & others ...Respondents. _______________________________________________________ 8. CWP No. 1152 of 2022 Sonam Angmo ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents. _______________________________________________________ 9. CWP No. 1484 of 2022 Kalpana ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents. _______________________________________________________ 3 Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Peeyush Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kumar, Mr. Vikas Rajput, Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocates, Ms. Samriti Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Pandey, Advocate & Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate, for the respective petitioners. Mr. Peeyush Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kumar, Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocates & Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for the respective respondents. G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) Challenge by the State in CWP No. 2489 of 2018, titled as State of H.P. & others Vs. Suresh Chand Heer & others and CWP No. 6972 of 2021, titled as State of H.P. & others versus Kavita Thakur & others, is to the order dated 09.01.2018, passed by the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal, Shimla (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in a bunch of 20 Original 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 4 Applications, the lead case of which was Original Application No. 5241 of 2016, titled Suresh Kumar Heer & others versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others, whereby the Original Applications filed by the employees were allowed and the recovery order dated 10.10.2016 (Annexure A-2) was quashed. The State thus was directed to grant pay scale of Rs. 10,300- 34,800/- plus grade pay of Rs. 4200/- with initial start of Rs 16,290/- to the employees, on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. 2. Four other writ petitions, i.e. CWPOA No. 2719 of 2020, titled as Anju Bala Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & another, CWPOA No. 4042 of 2020, titled as Maina Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, CWPOA No. 5875 of 2020, titled as Santosh Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & others and CWPOA No. 6834 of 2020, titled as Vinod Kumar & others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, have been received on transfer from the Tribunal, wherein Original Applications had been filed and on the abolition of the Tribunal, these matters came before this Court. In the said petitions, challenge is also to the same order dated 10.10.2016 5 on the same terms, as the initial start of pay of the employees had been reduced from Rs.16,290/- to Rs. 14,500/-. 3. The reliance in the Original Applications as such has been placed upon the order dated 09.01.2018, passed by the Tribunal in Original Application No. 6204/2016, titled as Kavita Thakur & others versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others, which was one of the aforesaid Original Applications, decided by the Tribunal, the lead case of which was Original Application No. 5241 of 2016, titled as Suresh Kumar Heer & others versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others. 4. The facts in all the matters are common and the issue is also common and by the common order, all the matters are thus being disposed of. 5. Similarly, three writ petitions i.e. CWP No. 86 of 2021, titled as Pawan Kumar & others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, CWP No. 1152 of 2022, titled as Sonam Angmo Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others and CWP No. 1484 of 2022, titled as Kalpana Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, have been 6 originally filed before this Court, wherein also, the same relief has been sought challenging the recovery order dated 10.10.2016 and notification dated 01.09.2015, while also placing reliance upon the order passed by the Tribunal in Suresh Kumar Heer’s case (supra). 6. The Tribunal as such while allowing the Original Applications came to the conclusion that the employees, who were appointed as Lecturers under the Para Teachers Policy, were governed by the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2012 and were entitled to the same pay scale on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ as was being given to the Lecturers appointed prior to 24.09.2012 under the same Policy and had been regularized on completion of 10 years’ service. It was held that there cannot be two initial starts in the same cadre and the action of the respondent giving different initial starts to the same cadre who are discharging the same duties, is discriminatory in nature and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7 7. The employees being posted as Teachers and working in the same Department, could not be denied the initial start of pay of Rs. 16,290/- and be given start of Rs. 14,500/- merely on the ground that they had been appointed after 24.09.2012. 8. Reliance had been placed by the Tribunal upon the two judgments of the Apex Court, i.e. Union of India Versus Dinesh K.K., (2008) 1 SCC 586 and Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tube-wells Corporation & others Versus G.S. Uppal & others, (2008) 7 SCC 375, to quash the recovery order dated 10.10.2016 and grant the relief, as mentioned above. 9. Counsel for the State has primarily argued that the employees had been regularized after 24.09.2012 and as per Rule 5(ii) of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Category) Post Wise Revised Pay) Rules, 2012, (for short ‘the Revised Pay Rules’), if a Government servant was appointed on or after the date of commencement of the Rules, the pay would be fixed at minimum of the pay band plus grade pay as mentioned in the “Schedule” against the respective 8 category/post. It is thus submitted that once the regularization had been done after 24.09.2012, the recovery order dated 10.10.2016 was justified, as the benefit of revised pay would only be given subject to the conditions mentioned in the Revised Pay Rules. 10. Counsel for the employees, on the other hand, have submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is justified, because merely on account of the fact that the employees had been appointed after 24.09.2012, they could not have been discriminated. They being Lecturers appointed under the Para Teachers Policy after 24.09.2012 and the Lecturers appointed under the same Policy prior to 24.09.2012 who were regularized on completion of 10 years’ service, fell in the same category and they were performing the same set of duties, and therefore, there was violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is, thus contended that the order of the Tribunal is justified. 11. We have perused the record and on perusal thereof, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the Tribunal is not liable to be interfered with. 9 12. It is to be noticed that the initial appointment as such of the persons concerned under the Para Teachers Policy was made way back in the year 2004, as is evident from the Regularization Order dated 18.12.2014 (Annexure R-3). The perusal of the Regularization Order dated 18.12.2014 (Annexure R- 3), would go on to show that the regularization of Post Graduate Teachers was done in the pay band of Rs. 10,300-34,800 plus grade pay of Rs. 4200/- with initial start of Rs.16,290/- by the Director of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh. Thus, it cannot be said that the said persons were appointed after 24.09.2012, as per the stand of the State that it has followed Rule 5(ii) of the Revised Pay Rules. Rule 5(ii) of the Revised Pay Rules, reads as under:- “5(ii) In case of a Government servant appointed on or after the date of commencement of the Rules, the pay will be fixed at minimum of the pay band plus grade pay as mentioned in the “Schedule” against the respective category/post.” 10 13. It is pertinent to mention here that as per Rule 1(ii) of the Revised Pay Rules, these Rules would come into force with effect from the date as mentioned in Column 6 of the “Schedule” appended to these Rules. The power to amend the Schedule has been been given to the Government under Rule 9 of the Revised Pay Rules, that it may by notification, add to or delete from the Schedule any entry or otherwise amend the Schedule. 14. Rule 1(ii) and Rule 9 of the Revised Pay Rules read as under:- “ 1(ii) They shall come into force with effect from the date as mentioned in Column 6 of the “Schedule” appended to these rules. 2 to 8 xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx 9. Power to amend the Schedule- The Government, may by notification, add to or delete from the Schedule any entry or otherwise amend the Schedule and thereupon the Schedule shall be deemed to have been amended accordingly.” 15. A perusal of the Schedule apparently, which was issued in exercise of Rule 9 of the Revised Pay 11 Rules, would go no to show that the initial start of pay of School Lecturers/PGT, was Rs. 16,290/- which reads as under: School Lecturers/ PGT (i)10300- 34800 (ii)10300- 34800 4200 5400 16290 initial start This PB and GP will be given after 2 years of regular service Already existing 01.10.2012 16. From the above, it is thus apparent that the Government had itself specified as to what was the pay, which was to be granted as such to the School Lecturers/PGT and and same was ordered to be given to them in consonance with the scale of pay which had been fixed under the Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post of Graduate Teachers Class-III (Non- Gazetted) in the Department of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, whereby pay scale of Rs. 10300- 34800 + 4200 grade pay with initial start of Rs.16,290/- was granted to the Post Graduate Teachers. Rule-4 of the said Rules reads as under:- “4. Scale of Pay: Rs. 10300-34800 + 4200 grade pay with initial start of Rs. 16,290/-” 12 17. Rule 3(b) of the Revised Pay Rules talks about the existing Government employees and the same reads as under: “3(b) “Existing government employees” means a government servant who is in the government service on or before the date of commencement of these rules.” 18. From the perusal of the Regularization Order dated 18.12.2014 (Annexure R-3), it would be clear that the appointments of the persons concerned were done by the Government in 2004 in different subjects under PARA Teacher Policy-2003 in Government Senior Secondary Schools in HP against the sanctioned posts. However, regularization of services of the said persons was done after they had completed 10 years of continuous service by the order passed on 18.12.2014, by the Director of Higher Education. Therefore, the fall back as such was upon Rule 5(ii) of the Revised Pay Rules that the appointment made on or after the commencement of the Rule was not justified by passing the order dated 10.10.2016 by the same Officer, namely, the Director 13 of Higher Education, since the said persons were appointed much prior in the year 2004. 19. Apparently, the revision of pay was done on account of the instructions issued on 01.09.2015 (Annexure R-6) by the Finance Department of the Government. From the perusal of the same, it would be apparent that there was no amendment made in the Schedule as provided under Rule 9 of the Revised Pay Rules. 20. In the absence of any such amendment to the Schedule, we are of the considered opinion that the State was bound, firstly by the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and secondly, by the Pay Revision Rules and the Schedule appended thereto, apart from the fact that the employees as such had been appointed prior to the Regularization Order as such. Therefore, Clause 5(ii) of the Revised Pay Rules could not been used therein. 21. The above reasoning is in addition to the reasoning given by the Tribunal, which held that the similarly situated employees who were doing the same kind of work, could not draw different pay scale and it 14 would be discriminatory in view of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as such to fix the initial pay of the employees at Rs. 14,500/- instead of Rs. 16290/- on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, while relying upon the judgments of the Apex Court, cited above. 22. Another reason, for which we would dismiss the present writ petitions filed by the State is that as noticed above, 20 Original Applications had been decided by the Tribunal, whereas the State has preferred only two writ petitions , i.e. CWP No. 6972 of 2021 against the Original Application No. 6204 of 2016, titled as Kavita Thakur & others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others and CWP No. 2489 of 2018, against Original Application No. 5241 of 2016, titled as Suresh Kumar Heer & others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others. 23. It is also pertinent to notice here that in the above Original Application No. 5241 of 2016, there were as many as 68 applicants, whereas the State has only chosen to implead only the first employee i.e. Suresh Kumar Heer, as the respondent in the writ 15 petition. Another 13 employees filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC themselves to be impleaded in the petition. Thus, now there are 14 respondents in CWP No. 2489 of 2018, whereas there were 68 applicants in the Original Application. 24. The State thus cannot pick and choose as to challenge the order with regard to certain employees by leaving majority of the persons in the Original Applications decided by the Tribunal. 25. In such circumstances, we do not find any plausible reason to interfere with the well reasoned order dated 09.01.2018, passed by the Tribunal in a bunch of 20 Original Applications. 26. Accordingly, the writ petitions filed by the State are dismissed. Similarly, the Original applications which were filed before the Tribunal and had been received by transfer by this Court on abolition of the Tribunal and three writ petitions which were filed before this Court, are allowed in the same terms and the recovery order dated 10.10.2016 is quashed in the same terms. 16 27. It is made clear that in case, recovery has been effected from the employees in pursuance to the order dated 10.10.2016, the same shall be re-paid to the employees within a period of two months from the date of this order, failing which the employees shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the recovery, so effected. 28. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of alongwith pending application(s), if any. ` (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice. May 28, 2025 (Ranjan Sharma) (hemlata) Judge.