2025:HHC:28399 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No.561 of 2025 Decided on: 19.08.2025 __________________________________________________________ K.G. Joseph ...Appellant (Kuttikkattukunnel Gervasis Joseph) Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the appellant: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1, 2 & 4-State. Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for respondents No.3 & 5-Municipal Corporation, Shimla. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal by one of the writ petitioners is to the order dated 08.11.2024, passed by learned Single Judge, in CWPOA No.4405 of 2019, titled K.G. Joseph and Ors. versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. 2. The challenge before the learned Single Judge was to the order dated 02.09.2014 [Annexure P-11], 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:28399 - 2 - whereby the Secretary (Urban Development), Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, took a decision that the writ petitioners were not entitled to any extra benefits/distribution of 32% of total laboratory fees realized from laboratory tests. 3. The reason for declining the said benefit was on account of the fact that though it was mentioned in Condition No.8 of the Appointment Letter dated 17.05.1979 [Annexure P-1, in Writ File] issued by the Municipal Corporation Shimla, to the writ petitioner No.1, that the said employees were drawing pay and allowances at par with the State Government and such type of extra benefits cannot be allowed to government servants by the State Government. The Corporation Health Officer and Laboratory Staff were getting pay scale + NPA at par with their counterparts in the State Government Health Department/Laboratories and there was no practice in the State Government Health Department of apportioning or distributing the laboratory fees among the staff. Thus, the objection raised by the Local Audit Department was sustained. 4. The challenge was also laid to the earlier order dated 07.09.2012, whereby, it had been decided that such 2025:HHC:28399 - 3 - practice must be discontinued. The objection raised by the Local Audit Department was held valid and the Municipal Corporation was directed to ensure compliance immediately. 5. It is not disputed that on earlier occasion, on account of the letter dated 07.09.2012, as such, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.8899 of 2012, wherein the learned Single Judge had set aside the order dated 07.09.2012. Directions were issued to pass a reasoned, speaking order after taking into consideration the conditions of service of the petitioners with other similarly situated persons and the condition incorporated in their respective appointment letters and their legitimate expectations. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 02.09.2014 came to be passed, which was subject matter of challenge by five petitioners. 6. The reason which weighed with the learned Single Judge to dismiss the writ petition and reject the claim was that, although as per the terms of appointment the Clause was expressly incorporated in the appointment letter, but the same could not have been incorporated in the absence of any service rule. However, the claim of the petitioners was that such a benefit, was on the basis of the 2025:HHC:28399 - 4 - appointment letter and gave an indefeasible right in favour of the petitioners which could not be taken away. Admittedly, the services of the petitioners being governed by the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Services Act, 1994, and none of the enactments or Rules and Regulations framed thereunder provide for payment of any share out of fee collected by the laboratory prevailed with learned Single Judge. Therefore, the action of the State in withdrawing such benefit, which was not being granted to the employees in addition to the pay scales and allowances extended at par with the other employees of the State, was held to be justified. 7. Counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the terms of appointment, made in the year 1979, had continued to operate till the initial stoppage of wages on 07.09.2012, and it was thereafter the petitioners initiated litigation claiming the said benefit. 8. A perusal of the reply filed by the State shows that the employees were drawing pay and allowances at par with the State Government, and therefore, such type of extra benefits cannot be allowed to government servants and the Local Audit Department had objected to the release of 32% share of the Laboratory Fees amongst the 2025:HHC:28399 - 5 - employees posted in the Laboratory of Municipal Corporation, Shimla and resultantly, the said decision was taken. 9. The stand of the Corporation, as such, was that the objection of the Local Audit Department was valid, and a speaking order had accordingly been passed and duly communicated. Whereas, the Director, Audit has also taken the plea that while checking the expenditure of the Municipal Corporation, it was noticed that 32% of the fees was being distributed amongst the laboratory staff irregularly and the staff were getting the pay & allowances at par with the State Government and such type of extra benefits were not allowed to Government servants by the State Government. The Corporation Heath Officer was getting pay scale + NPA at par with his counterparts in the State Government Heath Department/Laboratories and an excess payment of Rs.1,78,516/- was made during the year 2009-10. On this account, the matter was brought to the notice of Principal Secretary [Urban Development] for necessary action. The purpose of Audit was to ensure that expenditure out of Government funds is incurred in accordance with the Rules and Policy authorizing the same, and upon such appraisal, the concerned department had 2025:HHC:28399 - 6 - taken affirmative action. 10. We have gone through the Appointment Letter on the basis of which the appellant is claiming his right, which provides 8% of the Laboratory share out of the monthly income of the Laboratory. The appellant had been appointed way back in 1979 in the grade of Rs.160-10- 200/15-400 plus usual allowance [Rs.160/- per month] as per the applicable Rules. The said pay scale was duly revised over the period of years, and his pay has been enhanced, bringing him at par with other similarly situated employees working in the State Government. 11. It is always the case of the employees and the endeavor of the Courts that parity should be maintained at all levels so as to ensure that Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not violated. However, nothing has been shown to us that any service Rule provides that a certain percentage of the dues collected by the Laboratory is payable to the employees. 12. It is settled principle that appointments are made on the basis of Rules in question which specify the pay grade of the employee, and de hors the same anything over and above even if it had found mention in the appointment letter, cannot stand judicial scrutiny. 2025:HHC:28399 - 7 - A benefit, as such, arising out of such an illegal Clause cannot be allowed to continue, as a Government employee is only to be paid salary as per Rules regulating the service conditions, and any such percentage of the work conducted would be detrimental, as such, and would lead to financial bleed upon the Government departments, if so permitted. 13. Each and every employee in different situations would thus be able to claim that he has certain right on account of the duties he has been performing and would require percentage of commission out of the earnings of the Corporation or the Government, which would be de hors the Rules, as the Rules do not permit payment of any such percentage or commission to be paid to employees. 14. In such circumstances, and in the absence of any legal right under the Rules, we are of the considered opinion that on account of the objection raised by the Local Audit Department, the concession earlier extended has been rightly withdrawn. The fact remains that the Audit Department had proposed that the recovery should be effected from the employees; however, keeping in view the fact that there was no misrepresentation on their part, and the fact that they were paid over a long period, willingly by the Corporation, we are of the considered opinion that the 2025:HHC:28399 - 8 - stoppage of the percentage, as such, is justified, and no recovery can be permitted in view of the law laid down in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334. 15. Accordingly, we find no irregularity or illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge warranting interference in this appeal. 16. With the aforesaid observation, the appeal is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge August 19, 2025 [Shivender/Himani]