( 2026:HHC:20350 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPOA No.619 of 2019 Decided on: 26th May, 2026 Sarla Sharma (deceased) through her LRs .......Petitioners versus State of H.P and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr.Gaurav Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) Petitioner Sarla Sharma, who died on 14.11.2021, has been substituted vide order dated 24.03.2026. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts of the case are being referred to as stated by the original petitioner. 2. The original petitioner, by way of present petition, had prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned orders dated 10.4.2007 Annexure P- 12 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of benefit of M.A. qualification and pay fixation may kindly be declared unjust, illegal, arbitrary, in colorable exercise of powers and in violation of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and against the principles of Natural Justice, against the provisions of 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2026:HHC:20350 ) 2 service jurisprudence and Rules, Guidelines & Notification issued by the respondents from time to time and may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the petitioner who has passed her M.A. degree in the month of July, 1978 may kindly be held entitled for the benefit of M.A. qualification and pay fixation accordingly as per the records of the respondents and the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the benefits of M.A. qualification to the petitioner w.e.f. July, 1978 onwards with all consequential benefits of pay fixation, arrears and fixation of pension accordingly with interest @ 18% per annum.” 3. The facts, as emerge from the pleadings, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Basic Teacher (in short JBT) on 13.07.1959. Thereafter, she was appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher (in short TGT) on 26.07.1970. The petitioner had obtained degree of Master of Arts (in short ‘MA’) in Hindi by securing 3rd Division in July, 1978 and later on improved her division in March, 1979. 4. The petitioner has claimed that in the year 1970, when the State Government had revised the pay-scale of Teachers on Punjab analogy on the basis of report of Kothari Commission, the TGTs having qualification of Master’s Degree in 3rd division were granted the pay-scale of Rs.250-550 and 2nd and 1st division were grantedRs.300-600/-. The grant of revision of pay-scale was made effective w.e.f. 01.11.1966. Thereafter, vide notification dated 02.11.1979, the Government had revised the pay-scale w.e.f. 01.01.1978 and ( 2026:HHC:20350 ) 3 25% of Trained Graduate Teachers strength as on 01.11.1966 were granted the revised scale of Rs.700-1300, at par with the Lecturers of School cadre category. Later on, the pay-scale was revised w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and thereafter 01.01.1996. The relevant table is reproduced hereunder: Sr.No. Date of Revision Pre-revised scales Revised scale 1. 1.11.1966 180-450/200-500 250-600/300-600 2. 1.1.1978 250-600/300-600 700-1300/700-1300 (Post Graduate Teachers (25% of trained Graduate Teachers strength as on 1.11.1966). 3. 1.1.1986 700-1300 60% 825-1580 25% 1200-1700 15% 1800-3200 2000-3500 after 8 years Sr. Scale 2100-3700 Sr. Scale After 18 years. 4. 1.1.996 1.1.1996 1800-3200 2000-3500 (after 8 years) 2130-3700 2000-3500 (after 18 years) : 6400-10640 : 5. The petitioner has averred that she had served from July, 1978 to October, 1996 as TGT and thus was entitled to the scales of Lecturer from time to time as she was having qualification of M.A. in Hindi. The petitioner had retired from service on 31.10.1996, however, she came to know about the said benefits having been granted to the similarly situate persons in the year 2006 and thereafter she had represented to the respondents to grant her the same benefits. However, the representation made by her came to be rejected, vide communication dated 10.04.2007 (Annexure P- 12), on the ground that the Teachers, who had passed M.A. ( 2026:HHC:20350 ) 4 Examination between 01.11.1966 to 31.12.1977 were eligible for PGT scale and since the petitioner had passed M.A. Examination in March, 1979, she is not entitled to the same. 6. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said decision had approached the erstwhile learned Tribunal by filing Original Application No.2501 of 2007, which after abolition of the Tribunal was transferred to this Court and registered as CWP(T) No.15708 of 2008, titled, Mrs. Sarla Sharma versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. This petition was disposed of on 08.07.2011 (Annexure P-14), with liberty reserved to the petitioner to initiate the fresh proceedings, and, thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 7. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that the plea taken by the respondents that the cut-off date was fixed as 31.12.1977 is apparently wrong, when the revision has taken place w.e.f. 01.01.1978 does not stipulate this condition, rather it allows benefit of these pay scales by considering the appointed day as 02.11.1979 and not as 31.12.1977. The rejection of the claim of the petitioner, vide order dated 10.04.2007, is against the pay revision’s notifications/orders. The petitioner was entitled for ( 2026:HHC:20350 ) 5 the benefit of her passing M.A. Degree firstly in July, 1978 in 3rd Division and then in March, 1979, when she improved her Division till her retirement, which took place on 31.10.1996. Therefore, she is entitled for fixation of her pay firstly in the pay-scale of Rs.250-600 from July, 1978 and then in the pay- scale of Rs.300-600 from March, 1979, when she improved her M.A. degree from 3rd division to 2nd division. Thereafter, she is entitled to the benefits of M.A. qualification till her retirement on 31.10.1996.The action on the part of the respondents to reject the claim of the petitioner cannot be allowed to stand on any count and liable to be declared unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. The respondents filed reply to the petition and supported its decision. It has been averred that as per Government instructions, the incumbents having passed MA/M.Sc./M.Ed., during the period 01.11.1966 to 31.12.1977 only and falling amongst the 25% of the total cadre strength of the TGTs as on 01.11.1966 on Punjab analogy, for which number of such teachers was to be worked out between 01.11.1966 and 31.12.1977 and this 25% of the total strength of cadre was to be worked out on yearly basis ( 2026:HHC:20350 ) 6 without deduction in the Lecturer posts, were eligible for their fixation in the PGT pay-scale. The State Government revised the pay-scale of Teachers on Punjab analogy and the TGTs having qualified the M.A./M.Sc./M.Ed. examination between the period 01.11.1966 to 19.02.1979 were granted increments in the pay-scale of Rs.250-550/600 on the basis of their respective placements in different divisions in their respective Post Graduate examinations. 9. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply and controverted the facts pleaded in the reply. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is not having qualification of MA in Hindi. The only dispute which has been raised in the reply is that the Government had revised the pay-scales of the teachers on Punjab analogy of the TGT having qualified the M.A./M.Sc./M.Ed., examination between 01.11.1966 to 19.02.1979 were granted increments. The documents placed on record by the petitioner, especially, Annexures P-1 to P-4 clearly reveal that the petitioner had qualified M.A. in Hindi till July, 1978. The petitioner has placed on record Annexure P-5, which is the result sheet of ( 2026:HHC:20350 ) 7 M.A. Hindi, wherein she had secured 418 marks out of 800 marks. As per the note appended to this result sheet, it is evident that the petitioner had passed her M.A. Hindi degree in July 1978, securing 394 marks out of 800 marks in 3rd division and later on, improved her division in March, 1979 and secured 2nd division. Thereafter, she has been issued Annexure P-6 i.e. the degree of Master of Arts on 29.06.1980, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the petitioner had passed the examination for the degree of Master of Arts in March, 1979. Once as per the reply filed by the respondents- State, the qualification of M.A/M.Sc./M.Ed. was to be considered between 01.11.1966 to 19.02.1979 for the purpose of grant of Post Graduate Teachers scale and the petitioner having passed the said examination in 3rd division in July, 1978, she could not have been denied the relief of the pay-scale, as was granted to her counterparts, as per notifications issued by the State government from time to time. A perusal of instructions dated 30.09.1970 (Annexure P-7) along-with annexures issued, clearly reveals that after the revision of time scale of pay, the TGTs who had acquired the Master’s degree in 1st and 2nd class, were held entitled to Rs.300-600 and those who had acquired qualification of M.A. ( 2026:HHC:20350 ) 8 in 3rd division, were held entitled to Rs.250-550/-. As per office memorandum dated 02.11.1979, issued by the respondents-State, the post of PGT (25% of Trained Graduate Teachers strength as on 01.11.1966) were granted the revised scale of Rs.700-1300. Thereafter, as per notification dated 07.11.1988 (Annexure P-9), the scale was further revised. Since the petitioner was having the qualification of M.A. in Hindi in 3rd division even before the cut-off date as was fixed on 19.02.1979, the benefits could not have been denied to her simply taking the date of degree mentioned in Annexure P-6 as March, 1979. The said degree was issued to the petitioner after improving her division from 3rd to 2nd division. The respondents-State in some paras have mentioned that the incumbents who had passed the M.A./M.Sc./M.Ed. during the period 01.11.1966 to 31.12.1977 only and falling amongst the 25% of the total cadre strength of the TGTs as on 01.11.1966, were eligible for their fixation in the PGT pay- scale, but if the preliminary submissions are perused, the date has been mentioned between 01.11.1966 to 19.02.1979. In the earlier round of litigation, the respondents had mentioned that the State Government had revised the pay- scale of Teachers on Punjab analogy and the TGTs having ( 2026:HHC:20350 ) 9 qualified the M.A./M.Sc./M.Ed. examination between the period 01.11.1966 to 19.02.1979 were entitled to PGT scales and once the petitioner had qualified the said examination though in 3rd division in July, 1978, she was entitled to the benefits as per instructions issued by the respondents, which benefits have been granted to other counterparts. 12. Even so far as the cut-off date is concerned, there is rational in fixing the said date to grant the benefits to the TGTs, who were in possession of qualification of M.A./M.Sc./M.Ed. Once the petitioner was already possessing the qualification of M.A. before the cut-off date, her claim even otherwise was genuine and the respondents had wrongly construed the passing of examination of MA in March, 1979, which is degree of improvement of her division in M.A. The action on the part of the respondents in denying the benefits is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, especially when other persons, who were having the qualification of M.A. had been granted the benefits of revised pay-scale issued by the State Government from time to time. 13. The petitioner had raked up the issue with respect to grant of benefits only in the year 2006, when she made a ( 2026:HHC:20350 ) 10 representation dated 10.11.2006 (Annexure P-11) and thus, she is entitled to the arrears only three years prior to the date of rejection of her claim w.e.f. 10.04.2007. The petitioner had filed the Original Application before the learned Tribunal, which came to be withdrawn on 08.07.2011. Since this Court had given the liberty to the petitioner to initiate the fresh proceedings, the petitioner is entitled to the arrears three years prior to the date of rejection of her claim w.e.f. 10.04.2007. 14. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 10.04.2007 (Annexure P-12), passed by respondent No.3 is quashed and set aside and the petitioner is held entitled to the pay-scale of PGT from 02.11.1979 onwards till her retirement on 31.10.1996 as granted to other similar situate employees. The pension of the petitioner be also revised. However, the arrears on account of grant of pay- scale of PGT are restricted to three years prior to the issuance of office order dated 10.04.2007. Since the petitioner has died, the respondents are directed to extend the benefits to the legal representatives of the petitioner, who have been brought on record vide order dated 24.03.2026. In case the arrears are not paid to them within a period of three months ( 2026:HHC:20350 ) 11 from today, they shall be held entitled to interest @6% per annum from today till the actual payment to them. No orders as to cost. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. 26th May, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (naveen) Judge