2026:HHC:20032 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.3283 of 2019 a/w connected petitions Decided on: 21.05.2026 1. CWPOA No.3283 of 2019 Rekha Thakur ...Petitioner Versus H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. ...Respondent 2. CWPOA No.2776 of 2019 Meera Jinta ...Petitioner Versus H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. ...Respondent 3. CWPOA No.2974 of 2019 Shushma Bagta ...Petitioner Versus H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. ...Respondent 4. CWPOA No.2977 of 2019 Brij Lal ...Petitioner Versus H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. ...Respondent 2 2026:HHC:20032 5. CWPOA No.2984 of 2019 Joginder Singh ...Petitioner Versus H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. ...Respondent 6. CWPOA No.2986 of 2019 Narveda Auckta ...Petitioner Versus H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. ...Respondent 7. CWPOA No.3274 of 2019 Krishna Chauhan ...Petitioner Versus H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. ...Respondent 8. CWPOA No.3372 of 2019 Roshan Lal ...Petitioner Versus H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. ...Respondent 9. CWPOA No.3384 of 2019 Bimla Devi ...Petitioner Versus H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. ...Respondent 3 2026:HHC:20032 10. CWPOA No.3459 of 2019 Rama Negi ...Petitioner Versus H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. ...Respondent 11. CWPOA No.3460 of 2019 Praveen Thakur ...Petitioner Versus H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. ...Respondent 12. CWPOA No.3461 of 2019 Prem Chand Chauhan ...Petitioner Versus H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. ...Respondent 13. CWPOA No.3478 of 2019 Padmo Devi ...Petitioner Versus H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. ...Respondent 14. CWPOA No.3488 of 2019 Dropti Chauhan ...Petitioner Versus H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. ...Respondent 4 2026:HHC:20032 15. CWPOA No.3578 of 2019 Ishwar Singh ...Petitioner Versus H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. ...Respondent 16. CWPOA No.3668 of 2019 Indira Devi ...Petitioner Versus H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. ...Respondent 17. CWPOA No.4167 of 2019 Raj Gopal ...Petitioner Versus H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. ...Respondent 18. CWPOA No.4222 of 2019 Parma Nand ...Petitioner Versus H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. ...Respondent 19. CWPOA No.4229 of 2019 Sardar Singh ...Petitioner Versus H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. ...Respondent 5 2026:HHC:20032 20. CWPOA No.4314 of 2019 Dharmender Kumar ...Petitioner Versus H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. ...Respondent 21. CWPOA No.4328 of 2019 Kapoor Chand ...Petitioner Versus H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents 22. CWP No.4394 of 2019 Jagdish Chand ...Petitioner Versus H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. ...Respondent 23. CWPOA No. 2959 of 2019 Rajinder Singh Mehta ...Petitioner Versus H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents 24. CWPOA No. 3376 of 2019 Neelam Sharma ...Petitioner Versus H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents 6 2026:HHC:20032 Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate, in all the petitions, except in CWPOA No.4328 of 2019. None for the petitioner in CWPOA No.4328 of 2019. For the respondent(s): Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate, in CWPOAs No. 3283, 2977, 2776, 3372, 3459, 3460, 3478, 3488, 3578, 4229 and 4394 of 2019. Mr. Durga Singh Kainthla, Advocate, in CWPOAs No. 2974, 2959, 2984, 3376, 3384, 3461, 3668, 4167, 4222 and 4328 of 2019. Mr. Abhishek Nagta, Advocate, in CWPOAs No.2974, 2986, 3274 and 4314 of 2019. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) Since common question of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, the same are taken up for final disposal together. 2. All the petitioners at the time of institution of present petitions were working in the respondent- Corporation on the post of the Clerk. Initially they were engaged as Helpers, but they performed the duties of Clerk. Later on, they have been shown as Office Helpers in the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 7 2026:HHC:20032 record of the respondent-Corporation and there was no cadre of Office Helpers. Their grievance is that though they have been re-designated as Clerk and paid the pay scale of ₹3120-5160/-, with initial start of ₹3220/- in the personal posts with immediate effect, but in some of the cases, the respondent-Corporation has considered them to be appointed as Clerk from the initial date of their engagement as Office Helper. In one of the connected petitions i.e. CWPOA No.4328 of 2019, titled Kapoor Chand vs. H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd., the petitioner Kapoor Chand was considered to be appointed as Clerk with effect from the initial date of his engagement/regularization as Office Helper and on this basis, he was further promoted to the post of Junior Assistant as evident from perusal of office order dated 19.10.2013 (Annexure P-5). Some of the petitioners after coming to know about the said fact made representations staking the claim that since they have also been appointed and working with the respondent-Corporation, they be also treated as Clerk from the date of the regularization of Sh. Kapoor Chand, i.e. 31.12.1997. It is relevant to mention that Sh. Kapoor Chand had raked up the issue before this Court 8 2026:HHC:20032 by way of CWP(T) No.7986 of 2008, and this Court while disposing of the petition on 27.12.2010 had noticed that Sh. Kapoor Chand has been re-designated as Clerk vide office order dated 05.10.2005, considering his regularization as 31.12.1997 which corresponds to date of regularization mentioned in memo dated 31.12.1997. Learned counsel representing him submitted that grievance raised in the petition will be satisfied in case seniority is given to him as Clerk from 31.12.1997. In view of the said prayer made, the petition was disposed of as having become infructuous. 3. After passing the order by this Court, Sh. Kapoor Chand was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant. One Sh. Rajinder Singh Mehta, who is also one of the petitioners had approached this Court by way of CWP No.9320 of 2013, titled, Sh. Rajinder Singh Mehta vs. Himachal Pradesh State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. and another, claiming the same relief as was granted to Kapoor Chand, and this Court vide judgment dated 29.03.2014, had given the direction to the respondents to consider and decide the request made by him in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned, within a period of two months from today. 9 2026:HHC:20032 4. After the decision passed by this Court, the respondent-Corporation had passed an office order dated 27.06.2014 (Annexure P-10) rejecting the claim of Rajinder Singh Mehta and Kapoor Chand stating that as per the office order dated 05.10.2005, the personal posts of Office Helpers have been converted as personal posts of Clerks w.e.f. 05.10.2005, and in addition, 34 personal posts of Clerks have been inducted into Clerks cadre/category. It was observed that in case of three Office Helpers, who were designated as Clerk on personal posts, had filed CWP(T) No.7518 of 2008, in which they were allowed the seniority as Clerk w.e.f. 01.01.1998. However, in that case the Court had directed that it shall not, be treated as precedent. It was also mentioned that the name of Kapoor Chand was erroneously mentioned at Serial No.2 by taking into account his date of joining as Clerk w.e.f. 31.12.1997, instead of 05.10.2005 and the same needs to be corrected. After considering the representation dated 16.06.2014, made by Kapoor Chand, since he was wrongly shown in the seniority list of Clerk at Serial No.2, it was ordered that his name will now figure at Serial No.43, below Smt. Neelam Sharma and above Sh. Naresh Kumar in the seniority list of Clerks, as it 10 2026:HHC:20032 stood on 28.02.2013. Against the said order dated 27.06.2014, Kapoor Chand also preferred a writ petition before this Court which is now registered as CWPOA No.4328 of 2019, and listed today. This Court had been pleased to stay the operation of the impugned order dated 27.06.2014, qua him. 5. The petitioners in all the petitions, except Kapoor Chand’s case have claimed the parity on the basis of the decision earlier passed in Kapoor Chand’s case and further it has been averred that there is no cadre of Office Helpers in the respondent-Corporation nor any post of Office Helpers are available and since the petitioners were regularized as Clerk and performing the duties of Clerk and also engaged against the post of Clerk, they are entitled to be granted the same benefit as granted in Kapoor Chand’s case. 6. The respondent-Corporation filed reply to the petition averring therein that the petitioners have no cause of action to file and maintain petitions. The petitions are barred by limitation as the petitioners have filed the petitions after 17 years and are claiming seniority as Clerk from the date of regularization as Office Helpers. It is further averred that the petitioners were initially engaged as daily 11 2026:HHC:20032 waged Office Helpers and as per the decision of the State Government, introduced vide notification dated 11.12.1997, the services of the petitioners were regularized as Office Helper, who had joined duties as such and thereafter vide office order dated 05.10.2005, the existing Officer Helpers holding personal posts were re-designated as Clerks in the personal posts, which was a personal measure to them. It has further been averred that it is wrong to allege that the petitioners were working with the respondent-Corporation as a Clerk from the very beginning and were paid daily wage of Clerk. It was submitted that in case of one Sh. Kishori Lal, his services were regularized as Clerk on completion of 10 years of service as Clerk, in pursuance of the directions given by this Court in CWP No.106 of 1991. It has further been mentioned that due to an oversight and clerical mistake, while finalizing the seniority list of Clerk, as it stood on 28.02.2013, the name of Kapoor Chand was erroneously mentioned at Serial No.2 instead of Serial No.43. The respondent-Corporation after noticing the said fact has rightly rectified the mistake and as such no relief can be granted to the petitioners. 7. The petitioners have filed rejoinders to the 12 2026:HHC:20032 replies and controverted the averments made therein. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 9. It is not in dispute that after passing the office order dated 27.06.2014 by the respondent-Corporation, this Court had been pleased to pass an ad-interim order on 04.07.2014, in CWP No.4682 of 2014, staying the office order dated 27.06.2014. It is also not in dispute that Sh. Kapoor Chand was promoted considering his date of joining as Clerk w.e.f. 31.12.1997 and was granted the benefits of promotion. It is also not in dispute that in case of three persons namely Saroj Sharma, Rani Thakur and Kamini Devi, who had filed CWP(T) No.7518 of 2008, were allowed the seniority as Clerk w.e.f. 01.01.1998, which fact has also been mentioned in the impugned order. No doubt, this Court had given the direction that the order passed in CWP(T) No.7518 of 2008, shall not be considered as precedent, however, once the respondent-Corporation had conceded before the Court that few of the employees of the Corporation will be allowed the seniority as Clerk from the date when they had been working on the post of the Helpers, the similar benefit cannot be denied to the 13 2026:HHC:20032 petitioners simply on the ground that the Court had observed that the judgment passed will not be treated as precedent. Not only this, in case of one Sh. Kishori Lal, the respondent-Corporation had issued an office order on 30.11.1999, wherein the benefit of appointing him as Clerk had been given. No doubt it is in pursuance of the judgment passed by this Court, but the respondent-Corporation being a model employer has to treat every employee equally and cannot discriminate with any of its employees. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again held that where a citizen is aggrieved by an action of the Government Department has approached the Court and obtained a declaration of law in his/her favour, other similarly situated ought to be extended the same benefit without going to Court. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amrit Lal Berry vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi and others, (1975) 4 SCC 714. Subsequent thereto also, the same principle has been applied by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.I. Shephard and others vs. Union of India and others, (1987) 4 SCC 431. The relevant para of the judgment reads as under :- 14 2026:HHC:20032 "19. The writ petitions and the appeals must succeed. We set aside the impugned judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and direct that each of the three transferee banks should take over the excluded employees on the same terms and conditions of employment under the respective banking companies prior to amalgamation. The employees would be entitled to the benefit of continuity of service for all purposes including salary and perks throughout the period. We leave it open to the transferee banks to take such action as they consider proper against these employees in accordance with law. Some of the excluded employees have not come to court. There is no justification to penalise them for not having litigated. They too shall be entitled to the same benefits as the petitioners. ….” 11. The above principles have again been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 (14) Scale 696. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in unequivocal terms that employer should not force its employees to knock the door of the Court, once the benefit has been given to one set of its employees. In the present case, admittedly in case of Saroj Sharma, Rani Thakur and Kamini Devi, the respondent- Corporation, had re-designated them in the pay scale of ₹3120-5160/-, w.e.f. 01.01.1998 and once they have been granted the benefits, the petitioners cannot be denied the same. 12. The pleas taken by the respondent-Corporation in the petitions that the petitions are not maintainable and 15 2026:HHC:20032 further the petitions are barred by limitation are concerned, the same are rejected for the reason that once the respondent-Corporation had granted the benefit in case of Kapoor Chand, which was later on withdrawn, the petitioners had immediately made representations to grant them the same benefit. Had the petitioner(s) not been claiming parity, the pleas taken by the respondent- Corporation would have been accepted. In case of other employees referred above, they have been extended the benefits by the respondent-Corporation at its own. 13. Learned counsel for the parties have apprised this Court that all the petitioners have now retired from service and in case the relief granted to them is acceded to, it will only put the respondent-Corporation in burden to the extent of pension. Since the petitioners had come before this Court and further litigating in the Court, they are held entitled only to be treated as Clerk for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits and not for any other service benefits such as arrears, promotion etc. This direction is also being issued keeping in view the fact that in case of other employees mentioned above, they have been granted other benefits, such as promotion and other terminal benefits. 16 2026:HHC:20032 14. Consequently, the petitions are allowed and the impugned order dated 27.06.2014, passed by the respondent-Corporation in CWPOA No.4328 of 2019, is quashed and set aside and the petitioners shall be treated as Clerk from the date when they were regularized as Office Helpers. The petitioners shall not be held entitled, to any other benefits, including monetary benefits, before their retirement. However, it is made clear that the arrears of pension shall be paid to them only from the due date of their retirement and in case the arrears are not paid within three months from today, the respondent-Corporation shall pay interest @6% per annum from today, till its payment. However, there shall be no orders as to cost. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 21 st May , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge