2026:HHC:19748 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.3708 of 2019 Reserved on: 07.04.2026 Decided on: 25.05.2026 ____________________________________________________________ B.R. Thakur ...Petitioner Versus H.P. State Electricity Board ...Respondent _____________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Paras Dhaulta, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge De-link from CWPOA No. 3703 of 2019. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs: “(i) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondent to grant the stepping up of pay of the petitioner equal to the pay of his immediate junior Sh.Roshan Lal, w.e.f. 11-02-1999 and with further increments w.e.f. 01- 02-2000 as already got examined and concurred repeatedly from the Finance Department of the Board in accordance with Fundamental Rule as well as instructions dated 16-9-2004 by the Board which are in vogue, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:19748 (ii) That the directions to the effect to be issued to the respondent to pay arrears to the petitioner from the date his immediate junior drawing higher salary by application of Fundamental Rule 22 (c) i.e. w.e.f. 11-2-1999 with 18% interest within time bound period keeping in view of the petitioner age who is more than 55 years old at this stage and is at the verge of retirement.” 3. The facts, as emerge from the pleadings, are that the petitioner was initially appointed/ joined in the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short ‘HPSEB’) as Lower Divisional Clerk (for short ‘LDC’) on 08.10.1973 (forenoon), in the pay scale ₹110-250/- and on 14.06.1984 was promoted as Upper Divisional Clerk (for short ‘UDC’) (now re-designated as Senior Assistant) in the pay scale of ₹570- 1080/-, which pay scale was later on revised from 01.01.1986 to ₹1800-3200/- and his pay was fixed at ₹620/- per month. Thereafter the petitioner had passed the H.P. State Electricity Board Supervisory Accounts Services Part-I Examination, and was promoted/ appointed as Divisional Accountant (for short ‘DA’). Subsequently he was re- designated as Superintendent (Divisional Accounts), vide office order dated 07.01.1994 in the pay scale of ₹1880- 3300/- and he joined his duties as DA on 19.02.1994. The pay scale of ₹1880-3300/-, was later revised to ₹6750- 11050/-, w.e.f. 01.01.1996. After joining as DA, the 3 2026:HHC:19748 petitioner was fixed in the pay scale of ₹1880-3300/- (Master Scale of ₹750-6700/-) at ₹2400/- per month from 19.02.1994. 4. The petitioner has averred that one Sh. Roshan Lal was initially appointed/joined as LDC in the respondent- Board on 08.10.1973 in the pay scale of ₹110-250/- and on 09.01.1985 he was promoted/joined as UDC in the pay scale of ₹570-1080/-, which was later revised from 01.01.1986 to ₹1800-3200/- and his pay was fixed at ₹600/- per month. However, later on after passing the H.P. State Electricity Board Supervisory Accounts Services Part-I Examination, he was appointed/promoted as DA. He joined his duties as DA 11.02.1999 and after joining, he was granted ₹9700/- per month, whereas the petitioner was fixed at ₹8275/-. Since the said person had been appointed as DA, after the petitioner on 11.02.1999 and was granted more pay than the petitioner, a representation was made by the petitioner to the respondent-Board to fix his pay at par with his immediate junior w.e.f. 11.02.1999 (i.e. from the date when his junior was getting ₹9700/- and the petitioner was getting ₹9100/-). It was further requested in the representation that his stepping-up case may also be got 4 2026:HHC:19748 examined. 5. The Chief Accounts Officer of the respondent- Board had got examined the case of the petitioner for stepping-up from the Finance Department of the Board and forwarded the same to the Secretary of the Board. However, his claim came to be rejected by the respondent-Board vide letter dated 22.11.2007 (Annexure P-5), on the ground that the petitioner had not opted the pay scale of ₹2000-3500/-. The stepping-up case of the petitioner will only be examined as and when the decision of the Hon’ble Tribunal is arrived at, on the Original Application filed by him. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 22.11.2007 (Annexure P-5), passed by the respondent- Board, the petitioner has filed the present petition and has prayed for stepping-up of his pay at par with his junior on the principle of stepping-up. 7. The respondent-Board has filed counter affidavit/reply to the petition and has not controverted the facts as mentioned above. It has been pleaded that Sh. Roshan Lal had appeared in the H.P. State Electricity Board Supervisory Accounts Services Part-I Examination and after declaring successful, he was appointed as DA on 5 2026:HHC:19748 11.02.1999. It is also pleaded that the said Sh. Roshan Lal had completed 23 years’ service as on 09.10.1996, while holding the post of UDC and consequently he was granted advance promotional increments, as per the scheme framed and notified by the competent authority vide letters dated 31.01.1991, 10.01.2002 and 07.11.2006. Since said Roshan Lal had not earned promotions in his service career, therefore, his pay was fixed as on 09.10.1996 at ₹2580/- and consequent upon his appointment as Superintendent (Divisional Accounts), he was granted the benefit of FR-22-C (now FR-22(1)(a)(i)) and thus his pay as on 11.02.1999 had reached at the stage of ₹9100/-. Thus, the difference in the pay of the petitioner to that of Sh. Roshan Lal is on account of grant of advance promotional increments on completion of 23 years’ of service, while the petitioner was appointed as DA prior to completion of 23 years of service in the cadre of UDC (now Sr. Assistant). Thus, the petitioner herein cannot claim parity and stepping up of his pay to that of Sh. Roshan Lal. It is further averred that the respondent-Board had taken up the matter before the competent authority of the respondent-Board regarding grant of benefit of FR-22(1) (a)(i) to such those DAs, who had already earned the 6 2026:HHC:19748 advance promotional increments on competition of 23 years of service and the competent authority had withdrawn the benefit as per office order dated 20.06.2009 (Annexure RA- 4) and thereafter, the pay of Sh. Roshan Lal was re-fixed at ₹9100/- as on 11.02.1999 (Annexure RA-5). 8. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit/reply by the respondent-Board and placed on record decision of the respondent-Board regrading admissibility of benefit under FR-22(1)(a)(i) taken vide item no. 347.23 (Annexure P-11) and office order dated 10.07.2007 (Annexure P-12). 9. I have heard Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, learned senior counsel for the petitioner duly assisted by Mr. Paras Dhaulta, learned counsel and Mr. Ravinder Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent-Board and also perused the record carefully. 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as DA prior to Sh. Roshan Lal. The petitioner was appointed/ promoted to the post of DA, who joined his services on 19.02.1994, whereas Sh. Roshan Lal was appointed as DA on 11.02.1999. No doubt, the said Sh. Roshan Lal was granted the promotional increments, by 7 2026:HHC:19748 virtue of which, his pay was increased, but the said benefit was withdrawn as evident from perusal of Annexure RA-5 and before that the respondent-Board had issued letter dated 20.06.2009 (Annexure RA-4), which is after the decision taken on 21.04.2007. The petitioner in the writ petition has neither challenged the decision dated 20.06.2009 taken by the respondent-Board, whereby the benefit granted under FR-22(1)(a)(i) was withdrawn nor placed any material on record to show that the benefit granted to Sh. Roshan Lal was not withdrawn. Once the claim of the petitioner was based on the benefit granted to his junior, which stands withdrawn, no relief can be extended to the petitioner and his pay cannot be stepped to that of the pay of Sh. Roshan Lal whose pay was reduced to the level of the petitioner as evident from Annexure RA-5. 11. The petitioner, despite knowing the fact that the respondent-Board had withdrawn the benefit of FR-22(1)(a) (i), has not placed any material to suggest that Sh. Roshan Lal was still being paid the amount and once the pay of Sh.Roshan Lal was re-fixed and he too, was being paid the same pay as was granted to the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and as such, the petition being 8 2026:HHC:19748 bereft of any substance deserves dismissal. 12. Consequently, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. However, there shall be not orders as to cost. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 25 th M ay, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge