( 2026:HHC:22387 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPOA No.4004 of 2020 Decided on: 15.06.2026 Uploaded on: 15.06.2026 Kundan Lal Sharma ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr.Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Rupinder Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2-State. Mr.Mukul Sood, Advocate for respondent No.3. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner by way of present petition has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “a) That the impugned order dated 19.12.2017 Annexure A-6 may kindly be quashed and set-aside being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against the settled preposition of law. b) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the salary of Senior Assistant w.e.f. 18.03.2008 till 31.03.2015 for which period the applicant has discharged the duties of Sr. Assistant, with all consequential benefits such as arrears, increments, due and payable from time to time and also pension of the applicant be fixed/revised after granting all the aforesaid benefits.” 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2026:HHC:22387 ) 2 2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioner who was working on the post of Clerk was posted, vide office order dated 18.03.2008 on temporary basis, to look after the work on the post of Senior Assistant, since Shri Sunder Singh Chauhan, Senior Assistant had met with an accident, till 19.04.2008 or till joining by Shri Sunder Singh Chauhan. Admittedly, Shri Sunder Singh Chauhan, had joined his duties back on 21.05.2008. The petitionermade a representation to respondent No.3- Corporationon 08.01.2013 (Annexure A-2) seeking promotion to the post of Senior Assistant stating therein that he has been working in the Accounts Branch as Work Assistant and dealing with the work seat since 2008. Thereafter, another representation was made by him on 13.11.2013 (Annexure A-3) and when no decision was taken by respondent No.3-Corporation on his representations, the petitioner filed a writ petition claiming therein that he may be promoted to the post of Senior Assistant from due date along-with all consequential benefits and also to pay him the salary of the Senior Assistant from the month of March, 2008, when he was given additional charge of Senior Assistant in view of the provisions of F.R.49 (iii) along-with all consequential benefits. ( 2026:HHC:22387 ) 3 3. The writ petition preferred by the petitioner was transferred to the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, and came to be registered as T.A. No.4651 of 2015, titled, Kundan Lal Sharma vs. State of H.P and others and the same was disposed of on 21.07.2017, directing respondent No.3/competent authority to consider and decide the representations dated 08.01.2013 and 13.11.2013 (Annexures P-3 and P-4) in accordance with rules/law as expeditiously as possible, but in any case not later than two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order before the authority. 4. In sequel to the said direction given by the learned Tribunal, respondent No.3 passed an office order dated 19.12.2017 (Annexure A-6) whereby the representations made by the petitioner came to be rejected by observing that the petitioner had never been ordered to perform the duties ofhigher post of Senior Assistant after 21.05.2008 i.e. the date of joining the duties by Shri Sunder Singh Chauhan, Senior Assistant. It has further been observed in the order that the petitioner was due to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation as on 31.07.2014, but he availed extension in service for one year beyond the age of superannuation w.e.f. 01.08.2014 as Clerk and finally he was retired from service as on 31.03.2015 as per Government instructions. ( 2026:HHC:22387 ) 4 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that since the petitioner had been performing the duties of Senior Assistant even after joining the duties by Shri Sunder Singh Chauhan as Senior Assistant, he is entitled to the salary of the post of Senior Assistant. He further argued that the rejection of claim made by the petitioner vide office order dated 19.12.2017 is the result of wrong interpretation of provisions contained in F.R. 49(iii). The petitioner has worked on the post of Senior Assistant since 18.03.2008 till 31.03.2015 and, therefore, he is entitled to the pay on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. 6. Respondent No.3 filed reply to the petition and averred that the petitioner was deployed in Accounts Branch of respondentNo.3-Corporation as a stop-gap arrangement on temporary basis during the leave period of Shri Sunder Singh Chauhan, Senior Assistant. The petitioner cannot claim his promotion as Senior Assistant on the basis of such stop-gap- arrangement for effecting promotion to the post of Senior Assistant, as other eligibility criteria prescribed for the said post is to be looked into depending upon the availability of promotional post in the category. It has further been averred that the representation made by the petitioner was duly considered and decided by a speaking order. ( 2026:HHC:22387 ) 5 7. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the replyand controverted the averments made in the reply. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 9. A bare perusal of office order dated 18.03.2008 clearly reveals that the petitioner was asked to perform the duties on the post of Senior Assistant till 19.04.2008 or till joining of Shri Sunder Singh Chauhan, Senior Assistant. Shri Sunder Singh Chauhan had joined the duties on 21.05.2008. Once Shri Sunder Singh Chauhan had joined the duties on the post of Senior Assistant, there was no occasion to perform the duties by the petitioner as Senior Assistant. The petitioner has not laid challenge to office order dated 18.03.2008, by which, he was asked to perform the duties on the post of Senior Assistant till 19.04.2008 or till joining by Shri Sunder Singh Chauhan. Once Shri Sunder Singh Chauhan had joined the duties on 21.05.2008, the petitioner cannot stake any claim for the salary of the post of Senior Assistant beyond the said period, especially when he has not placed on record any order suggestive of the fact that he was ever asked to perform the duties on the post of Senior Assistant, after joining the duties by Shri Sunder Singh Chauhan. ( 2026:HHC:22387 ) 6 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that a perusal of order dated 19.06.2010 (Annexure P-8), reveals that the petitioner was transferred to the Establishment Branch, meaning thereby he was performing the duties on the post of Senior Assistant. The said submission cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the office order dated 19.06.2010 does not reveal that the petitioner was working and discharging the duties on the post of Senior Assistant. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Annexure P-9, wherein he has stated that he has made the entries. Even the said submission cannot be accepted for the simple reason that respondent No.3-Corporation had not assigned him the duties to be performed on the post of Senior Assistant and thus the order dated 19.12.2017 passed by respondent No.3-Corporationdoes not suffer from any illegality. The petitioner could have claimed salary of the post of Senior Assistant only if there was some order passed by respondent No.3-Corporation or it had admitted that the petitioner performed the duties on the post of Senior Assistant, even after joining of duties by Shri Sunder Singh Chauhan. Since respondent No.3-Corporation has not admitted that the petitioner has discharged the duties on the post of Senior Assistant after assumption of duties by Shri Sunder Singh Chauhan on 21.05.2008, ( 2026:HHC:22387 ) 7 the petitioner is not entitled to relief of salary beyond 20.05.2008. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was assigned the duties of the post of Senior Assistant vide office order dated 18.03.2008, the petitioner is entitled to the salary of the post of Senior Assistant w.e.f. 18.03.2008 till 20.05.2008, especially when respondent No.3-Corporation has admitted that the petitioner had discharged the duties on the post of Senior Assistant in addition to his own duties. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the issue raised in the present petition is covered by the decision of this Court in CWP No.2865 of 2019, titled, Rajesh Kashyap vs. Himachal Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation, wherein, it has been held that in case a person discharges the duties on the higher post, he is entitled to the salary. There is no dispute with this preposition of law, but in the present case, the petitioner was appointed to discharge the duties on the post of Senior Assistant only till 19.04.2008 or till joining of Shri Sunder Singh Chauhan Senior Assistant on the post. Since Shri Sunder Singh Chauhan, who was working on the post of Senior Assistant was on leave on account of an accident and had resumed his duties on 21.05.2008, the petitioner is not entitled for any salary after 20.05.2008. He is only entitled to the salary of the post of ( 2026:HHC:22387 ) 8 Senior Assistant w.e.f. 18.03.2008 till 20.05.2008, in terms of provision of F.R. 49(iii). 13. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3-Corporation to pay the salary to the petitioner of the post of Senior Assistant w.e.f. 18.03.2008 till 20.05.2008 within a period of three months from today after adjusting the salary received by him of the post of Clerk. In case the amount is not paid within three months from today, the respondent-Corporation shall pay interest @6% per annum from the due date till its payment. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) 15th June, 2026 Judge (naveen)