2026:HHC:24049 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.988 of 2019 Decided on: 20.06.2026 Uploaded on: 22.06.2026 Jai Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes For the petitioner: Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amit Kumar Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner by way of present petition has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned order dated 28.2.2011 Annexure P-6 passed by the respondent No.2 may kindly be quashed and set-aside. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to redesignate the petitioner as Junior Technician with effect from the date of his appointment and the respondents may further be directed to grant the petitioner pay scale of Rs.950-1800 from the date of his appointment and revised pay scale of Rs.3120-5160 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. (iii) That the respondents may further be directed to calculate the difference in wage and same may be disbursed to the petitioner alongwith 9% interest from the date of his appointment till the date of disbursement.” 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:24049 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Plumber on daily wage basis in the year 1989. At the time of his appointment the post of Plumber was Class-III post. However, when his services were regularized as per office order dated 22.01.1997 (Annexure P-1, he was appointed as Plumber (Class-IV) against the existing vacancy by the Commandant HPAP BN. No.III, Pandoh, District Mandi (HP) on temporary basis in the pay scale of Rs.750-30-950-35- 1160-40-1320-45-1410 (with the initial start of Rs.770/- (PM) plus other allowances sanctioned from time to time by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. It has been averred in the petition that as per order dated 24.06.2006 (Annexure P-2), the category of Plumber finds mention as Class-III category and having the pay scale of Rs.950-1800/-. The post of Plumber in the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department (for short ‘HPPWD’) was re-designated as Junior Technician in the pay scale of Rs.950-1800/- which is Class-III post, however, the petitioner who is performing the same and similar duties as that of Plumber with the respondent- Department, has been denied such benefit of pay scale as well as status of Class-III post. 3 2026:HHC:24049 3. The petitioner had made a representation on 08.12.1998 to grant him the pay scale of Class-III, however, when no action was taken, the petitioner had approached this Court vide CWP(T) No.7184 of 2008, titled, Jai Singh vs. State of H.P. & Ors., which was disposed of on 25.10.2010 with a direction to respondent No.2 to take a decision on the representation pending before him within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. 4. In sequel to the direction given by this Court, respondent No.2 passed an order on 28.02.2011 (Annexure P-6) and rejected the representation holding that the post, against which, the petitioner was appointed and accepted the appointment was a Class-IV post of a Plumber with a particular pay scale i.e. Rs.750-1410/-. Further, the terms and conditions and job requirement in different departments are different and so are the pay scales. Merely, having a higher qualification cannot be an entitlement for a higher pay scale. 5. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2011 (Annexure P-6) has approached this Court interalia on the grounds that the impugned order is illegal, 4 2026:HHC:24049 arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and against the principles of natural justice. The action on the part of the respondents by not offering the status of Class-III category upon him is highly unreasonable, unjust, arbitrary and discriminatory. It has further been averred that the respondents have not framed Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Plumber in the Police Department and since the petitioner is having the higher qualification i.e. ITI in Plumbering, denying him the benefit of status attached to the post of Plumber is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It has also been averred that the post of Plumber (Class-III) has been re-designated as Junior Technician by the Finance Department and has been given the pay scale of Rs.950- 1800/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986 with further revision of Rs.3120- 5160/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996. The action on the part of respondents by placing the petitioner under Class-IV category and further granting him the pay scale of Rs.750- 1410/- from the date of his appointment instead of Rs.950- 1800/-, is highly unreasonable and against the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. The respondents filed reply to the petition and averred that the erstwhile HPAP Battalion No.3 was created 5 2026:HHC:24049 by the Government of Himachal Pradesh on the central para military pattern within 62 posts of follower Constables (Tradesmen) were created and filled up. However, subsequently vide letter dated 23.07.1996 (Annexure R-1), these 62 posts of follower Constables (Tradesmen) were abolished and these follower Constables were adjusted against the vacant posts of general duty Constables in the said Battalion. In lieu of 62 posts of follower Constables, the Government created 62 posts of Class-IV posts of non combatized staff which included posts of Plumber. The post of Plumber was created in the pay scale of Rs.750-1410/- i.e. in Class-IV, keeping in view the job requirement and as such the petitioner has no claim for Class-III status viz-a-viz the pay scale. The plea taken by the petitioner that the post of Plumber in PWD is having the higher pay scale does not hold good, since the post, against which, the petitioner was appointed and accepted the appointment was a Class-IV post of a Plumber with a particular pay scale. The terms and conditions and job requirements in different departments are different and so are the pay scales. Merely, having higher qualification cannot be an entitlement for higher pay scale. 6 2026:HHC:24049 7. Thereafter, the respondents in sequel to the directions given by this Court vide orders dated 29.12.2025 and 07.03.2026 filed affidavit and placed on record Annexure-A attached with the communication dated 23.07.1996 (Annexure R-1). A perusal of affidavit clearly reveals that earlier the post of follower Constables were Class-III, which were abolished and new Class-IV posts of Plumber were created in HPAP Bn. No.-III. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 9. It is not in dispute that when the petitioner was initially appointed as a Plumber on daily wage basis in the year 1989, the post of Plumber was a Class-III post. This post has been designated as Class-IV only after 23.07.1996, as is evident from a perusal of Annexure-A appended with communication dated 23.07.1996 (Annexure R-1) issued by respondent No.1. Once the petitioner when initially appointed as a Plumber on daily wage basis was on Class- III post, the respondents could not have regularized his services as Plumber (Class-IV) category. The services of the petitioner ought to have been regularized as Class-III employee in the pay scale of Rs.3120-5160/- w.e.f. 7 2026:HHC:24049 01.01.1996. It is settled law that the employee working on a post has to be regularized on the same post, however, in the case of the petitioner, though he was initially appointed as a Plumber on Class-III post, his services have been regularized as Class-IV post, which is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unjust. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and another vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and another, (1986) 3 SCC 156, has held that the employee does not enjoy the same bargaining power as that of the employer. In the present case, since the petitioner was already working as a Plumber on daily wage basis with the respondents and his services were not being regularized, he had no option, but to accept his regularization as Plumber (Class-IV) category. Thus, the plea taken by the respondents that once the petitioner had accepted the appointment against Class-IV post, he cannot raise the dispute, the said plea cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in aforementioned judgment. 11. The plea taken by the respondents that 62 posts of follower Constables (Tradesmen) were abolished and 8 2026:HHC:24049 these follower Constables were adjusted against the vacant posts of general duty constables in the Battalion and in lieu of 62 posts of follower Constables, 62 posts of class-IV post of non-combatized staff, which included the post of Plumber, were created cannot affect the prospect of the petitioner for the simple reason that he was already serving with the respondents since 1989 as a Plumber, which was a Class-III post, who was awaiting his regularization. The respondents have not denied the averments made by the petitioner in the petition that his services were regularized and he was appointed on regular basis and earlier to that, he was appointed on daily wage basis as Plumber. Once the petitioner at the time of his initial engagement as Plumber on daily wage basis was serving on a Class-III posts, which came to be abolished subsequently, offering him appointment after regularization on the Class-IV post is illegal, unjust and arbitrary inasmuch as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The decision taken by the respondents on 23.07.1996 can be made applicable to those employees, who were recruited after the said date and not to the petitioner who was already serving with the respondents, and further his services were regularized 9 2026:HHC:24049 considering his services on daily wage basis. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that since the post of Plumber has been re- designated as Junior Technician in the HPPWD, the petitioner may also be re-designated as Junior Technician, cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that it is not within the domain of the Court to make classification of posts, which is the function of the executive. However, the petitioner who was working on the post of Plumber on daily wage basis being a Class-III post ought to have not been regularized on the same post considering it as Class-III post and granted him the pay scale of the post being Class-III post. 13. Learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that once the petitioner had accepted the appointment, when his services were regularized as Plumber on Class-IV post, at this juncture, he cannot lay challenge to the terms and conditions of the said appointment order. The said contention cannot be accepted, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in aforementioned judgment, wherein it has been held that the employee has no bargaining power at the time of offering him appointment. Further, once the petitioner was 10 2026:HHC:24049 already working as a Plumber which was a Class-III post prior to the decision taken by the respondents as per communication dated 23.07.1996, when 62 posts of follower Constable (Tradesmen) being Class-III posts were abolished and these follower Constables were adjusted against the vacant posts of general duty Constables, he could not have been denied regularization on the post as Class-III post. However, since the petitioner did not come to the Court, at the relevant juncture, when his services were regularized as Plumber (Class-IV) category, he is denied the benefit from the date of his regularization on actual basis and he is held entitled to the benefit of Class-III post of Plumber on notional basis from the said date till three years prior to the date of institution of the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has now retired from service on 31.01.2024 and thus, his pension has to be revised. 14. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 28.02.2011 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside with a direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner on the post of Plumber (Class-III) from the date of regularizing his service 11 2026:HHC:24049 w.e.f. 22.01.1997 and pay him the revised pay scale of Rs.3120-5160/- w.e.f. 22.01.1997, with all consequential benefits. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be paid the monetary benefits only from three years prior to the date of filing the present petition till actual payment to him. Since, the petitioner has now retired, his pension may be revised accordingly and arrears shall be paid to him within three months from today, failing which, the interest shall be paid on the arrears @6% per annum from today till actual payment. However, no order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 20 th June , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge