( 2026:HHC:20348 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 8830 of 2013 Decided on: 15.05.2026 ___________________________________________________________ Budhi Ram Verma ....Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board Ltd. ……Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kashyap, Advocate. Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral) Petitioner, Budhi Ram Verma, having retired from service of the Respondent-Board, as a Section Officer on 31.10.2012, has come up before this Court, seeking following relief(s):- “1. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to allow the benefit of pay fixation on actual basis instead of on notional basis or ordered in the order dated 04.06.2013 Annexure- P/17, with interest @ 12% per annum.” 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:20348 ) FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Case of the petitioner is that he has joined service as Clerk on 15.11.1973. He was promoted as UDC [now Senior Assistant] on 30.05.1987. Despite promotion, he was not relieved for joining the promotional post but he was relieved belatedly on 31.12.1987 and accordingly, he joined on promotion as UDC [now Senior Assistant] on 11.01.1988. It is averred that on completion of 08 years’ service as UDC the proficiency increment was admissible and based on this, other similar and junior incumbents who were promoted as UDC [now Senior Assistant] were given proficiency increment in June 1995 but due to the belated relieving of the petitioner from earlier post and the resultant belated joining on the promotional post and belated non-completion of requisite 08 years’ service, the proficiency step-up benefit was not given to the petitioner, whereas such incentives was given to 3 ( 2026:HHC:20348 ) other similar and junior incumbents. 2(i) It is averred the petitioner retired from service as Section Officer on 31.10.2012. After superannuation, the petitioner filed CWP No.116 of 2013, for granting proficiency step-up as UDC and pursuant to the directions passed by this Court in CWP No.116 of 2013, the Respondent- Board issued an Office Order on 04.06.2013 [Annexure P-17], granting the benefits of proficiency step-up, to the petitioner, in the following terms:- “1) That Sh. Budhi Ram (Petitioner) Retired as Section Officer on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2012 who was initially appointed as Clerk and joined as such on 15.11.1973. He was further promoted as UDC (now renamed as Sr. Assistant) vide office order No.85 dated 30.05.1987 along with his counter parts. 2) That all the counter parts senior and junior to him had joined the new assignment of UDC (now Sr. Assistant) during 6/1987 and their pay 4 ( 2026:HHC:20348 ) stood fixed at Rs. 1800/- per month in the Pay Scale of Rs. 1800-3200 with date of next increment 1.6.1988 etc. On completion of 8 years of service on the said post the persons senior/ junior to the petitioner have been allowed/granted the benefit of proficiency step up during the month of 6/1995 as per provisions of office order No. 138 dated 5.12.1989. 3. That Sh. Budhi Ram (Petitioner) had joined as LDC/Clerk during 1973 in the Board. He was further promoted as UDC (now Sr. Assistant) during 5/87. Owing to his late relieving by the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Namhol on 31.12.1987 (AN) vide order dated 31.12.1987 due to shortage of staff, the petitioner could join the new assignment on 11.1.1988 which resulted in fixation of the pay of petitioner lower than the pay of his counter parts. Due to his late join he could complete 8 years service criteria provided for the grant of proficiency step up on 11.1.1996. Relevant to note here that the pay scales of the employees of the HPSEB were revised on and w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and 5 ( 2026:HHC:20348 ) there was no provision for the grant of proficiency step up under the revised scales notified on and w.e.f. 1/1/1996. Since the petitioner completed the requisite criteria of 8 years on 11/1/1996, therefore, he could not be granted proficiency step up. Had he been relieved by the Assistant. Engineer ESD Namhol immediately on his promotion as UDC (now Sr. Assistant), in that event he would have completed the requisite criteria prior to 1/1/1996 and consequently got proficiency step up. From the above, it is evidently clear that the petitioner could not get proficiency step up due to administrative lapse/reasons for which nothing is attributable on the part of the petitioner in any way or in any manner. In view of above, it is hereby ordered that the eight years criteria for the grant of proficiency step up in the case of petitioner may be regulated from 26/6/1987 i.e. the date of joining of his immediate junior as UDC (now Sr. Assistant) and his pay may be fixed notionally. The other subsequent orders of pay fixation issued from time 6 ( 2026:HHC:20348 ) to time may also be revised accordingly on notional basis. However, the petitioner shall be entitled to the actual enhanced pensionary benefits, if any, from the date of his retirement under the provisions of Rule-33 & Rule-34 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 in pursuance of the clarification issued by the Principal Secretary (Finance) to the Govt. of HP vide his office Memo endorsed vide No. Fin (Pen) A (3)- 12/2010 dated 12 March, 2013.” 2(ii). It is averred that in term of Order dated 04.06.2013 [Annexure P-17], though the Respondent- Board had granted proficiency step-up to the petitioner by reckoning 08 years’ service as UDC from 26.06.1987 on the analogy and from the date from which other similar and junior(s) were given this benefit on notional basis but the Respondent-Board has denied the actual monetary benefits, accruing from proficiency step-up, to the petitioner for the period from 26.06.1987 till passing of orders on 04.06.2013 [Annexure P-17] illegally and without any 7 ( 2026:HHC:20348 ) fault attributable to the petitioner, which was arbitrary. STAND OF RESPONDENT BOARD IN REPLY- AFFIDAVIT: 3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice, Respondent-Board has filed a Reply-Affidavit, dated 06.01.2014 of Under Secretary of Respondent-Board. 3(i). The primary stand of Respondent-Board in Para 8 of Reply-Affidavit is that a compromise was arrived at between the Respondent-Board and the petitioner that the petitioner shall not claim actual monetary benefits, which accrue from proficiency step-up increment. It is averred that the instant petition is time barred as the instant petition was filed one year after retirement on 31.10.2012 and the belated petition is not maintainable and deserves dismissal. 4. Heard, Mr. M.L. Sharma, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Kashyap, Learned 8 ( 2026:HHC:20348 ) Counsel for the Respondent-HPSEBL. 5. Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances and the material on record, this Court is of the considered view, that the action of the Respondent-Board in denying the monetary benefits, by restricting the arrears for three years prior to filing of earlier CWP No. 116 of 2013 till the passing of orders on 04.06.2013 [Annexure P-17], has merit and the claim to this extent is accepted; whereas, the claim for entire monetary benefits is disallowed, for the following reasons:- 5(i). Plea of the Respondent-Board that a compromise was arrived at between the petitioner and the Respondent-Board that the petitioner shall not claim actual monetary benefits cannot sustain; when, no such compromise was ever arrived at between the parties and no such compromise has been placed on record by the Respondent-Board. 9 ( 2026:HHC:20348 ) Even, the order dated 04.06.2013 [Annexure P-17] does not spell out that any such compromise forgoing the arrears was arrived at between the petitioner and Respondent-Board. The plea, now being raised in the reply is an afterthought, just to deny the admissible actual benefits to the petitioner, when, the eligibility of the petitioner is not in dispute. Moreover once this benefit and entire arrear has been given to the similar and junior(s) incumbents, therefore the denial of arrears [though in restrictive form] to the petitioner amounts to treating “equals as unequal” and such an action cannot sustain. 5(ii). Indisputably, once a right for proficiency step-up increment had accrued to the petitioner w.e.f June 1995 and this benefit was denied till his superannuation on 31.10.2012, and the petitioner was constrained to file CWP No. 116 of 2013 and on the basis of the directions passed in CWP No. 116 of 10 ( 2026:HHC:20348 ) 2013, the Respondent-Board issued an order on 04.06.2013 [Annexure P-17], granting proficiency step-up increments at par with juniors and similarly situated persons to the petitioner from due date i.e. 26.06.1987 therefore, once the Respondent-Board had rectified the inaction on 04.06.2013 [Annexure P-17] granting benefits notionally w.e.f. June 1995, though notionally, then, the denial of arrears [restricted or entire arrears] without giving a prior notice, without giving a personal hearing cannot sustain. Even, the condition of giving notional benefits amounts to giving premium to Respondent-Board for its inaction ignoring that such benefit with all past arrears was given to others juniors. Moreover, the Respondent-Board has admitted in Para 3 of the Order dated 04.06.2013 that the non-grant of benefits of proficiency step-up to the petitioner at par with similar incumbents/juniors, was due to administrative reasons. Denial of monetary benefits amounts to 11 ( 2026:HHC:20348 ) penalizing the petitioner without any fault attributable to him. In these circumstances, the rights of the petitioner for arrears has to be balanced vis-à-vis the incumbents of the Respondent-Board, whereby, on one hand, the Respondent-Board had denied the rightful entitlement due from June 1995 till passing of orders on 04.06.2013 [Annexure P-17] whereas on the other hand, the petitioner did not assert a claim from June 1995 till filing of earlier CWP No. 116 of 2013 on 26.02.2013 and therefore, in facts of instant case, the objection of Respondent-Board that the petition is time barred is devoid of any merit. Since the entitlement of the petitioner for proficiency step-up, stands admitted, by Respondent- Board by issuing an order dated 04.06.2013 [Annexure P-17] w.e.f. 26.06.1987, therefore, instead of entire past arrears; the petitioner would be entitled to monetary benefits for a period of three years preceding the filing of the earlier writ petition, [i.e. CWP 12 ( 2026:HHC:20348 ) No. 116 of 2013] and as per the mandate of law in the case of Shiv Dass versus Union of India and Others (2007) 9 SCC 274; Union of India versus Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648; State of Madhya Pradesh and Others versus Yogendra Shrivastava (2010) 12 SCC 538 and Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak versus Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, 2022 SCC Online S C 641. DIRECTIONS: 6. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petition is partly allowed, in the following terms:- “(i). Condition of notional benefits of Proficiency Step-up in terms of order dated 04.06.2013 [Annexure P-17]; w.e.f 26.06.1987 as UDC-Senior assistant is quashed and set aside; (ii). Petitioner shall be entitled to monetary benefits accruing from Proficiency step-up in terms of order dated 04.06.2013 [Annexure P-17] for a period of three years 13 ( 2026:HHC:20348 ) prior to the filing of the earlier writ petition, i.e. CWP No. 116 of 2013, in terms of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Dass, Tarsem Singh, Yogendra Shrivastava and Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak (supra); (iii). Admissible arrears in direction no. (ii) be released within four weeks from the receipt of certified/downloaded copy of the judgment; (iv). Claim of the petitioner for entire past arrears is dismissed; (v). Parties to bear their respective costs.” In aforesaid terms, the instant petition is disposed of along with all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 15th May, 2026 (Shamsh Tabrez)