2026:HHC:24403 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17411 of 2025 a/w CWP No.16481 of 2025 Decided on: 22.06.2026 1. CWP No.17411 of 2025 Ajay Kumar and others ...Petitioners Versus Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Ltd. ...Respondent 2. CWP No.16481 of 2025 Nakul Sharma and others ...Petitioners Versus Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Ltd. ...Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes For the petitioner(s): Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent(s): Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Ad17411vocate with Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) CMP No.12817 of 2026 By way of present application, the applicant/respondent has prayed for placing on record the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 documents. 2. Learned counsel for the non-applicants/petitioners submits that he has no objection in case the application is allowed and the documents annexed therewith are taken on record. 3. In view of the above, the application is allowed and the documents annexed with the application are ordered to be taken on record. 4. The application stands disposed of. CWP No.17411 of 2025 and CWP No.16481 of 2025 5. Since both these petitions involve common questions of law and facts, the same are taken up together for final disposal. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the reply filed on behalf of the respondent-Bank in CWP No.17411 of 2025 may be considered reply in CWP No.16481 of 2025. His statement is taken on record. For adjudicating the claim in these petitions, the facts of CWP No.17411 of 2025 are taken up. 3 6. The facts as emerge from pleadings are that the petitioners were initially appointed as Junior Clerks with the respondent-Bank in the months of September and October 2017 and joined duties. Thereafter, they have been promoted to the post of Executive Assistant in the year 2023. 7. The precise grouse of the petitioners in the writ petition is that they have been denied the benefit of new Assured Career Progression Scheme ( for short “ACPS”), which was made applicable to the employees of the respondent- Bank, as per instructions dated 09.08.2012 (Annexure P-1). As per ACPS, an employee who has completed four years’ service, but less than eight years’ service in a cadre, will be placed in next grade pay in the hierarchy of grade pays and his pay will be fixed at next higher stage in the pay band, if he did not get any promotion within four years of service. If the pay so fixed is less than minimum of higher pay band, then his pay will be fixed at the minimum of higher pay band. The next increment in such cases will be given after qualifying service of 12 4 months in the higher pay band. Though the petitioners had completed four years’ service without any promotion in the months of September/October, 2021, but they were denied the benefit of ACPS, which action is totally illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. 8. It has also been averred in the petition that the respondent-Bank has granted benefit of ACPS to other employees on completion of four years’ service who were appointed w.e.f. 01.01.2016 and non-grant of the benefit to the petitioners is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondent-Bank cannot adopt double yardsticks and pick and choose method in the matter of grant of benefit of ACPS. The petitioners have placed on record office order dated 12.05.2021 (Annexure P-2), whereby increments under new ACPS have been released by the respondent-Bank to its employees. The petitioners have also placed on record the instructions dated 03.01.2022 (Annexure P-3), which provides 5 that the ACPS, which is applicable under the pre-revised pay structures will not be admissible on or after notified HP Civil Services (RP) Rules, 2022 i.e. 03.01.2022. The petitioners have also placed on record the office order dated 24.03.2023 (Annexure P-6), whereby the benefit of ACPS has been granted to the employees working in the Education Department of the State Government. 9. The Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Employees Union had made the request to release the increments under ACPS to eligible employees on dated 15.06.2024 (Annexure P-4), but the said request was not considered by the respondent-Bank and thereafter, the petitioners have filed the present petition before this Court, praying the relief that they may be granted the benefit of ACPS, after completion of four years of service since they were not promoted within four years of their service. 10. The respondent-Bank filed reply and has taken preliminary objections that the petition is not maintainable, in 6 view of the fact that the respondent-Bank is neither a State or other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, nor does it discharge any sovereign or statutory function so as to be automatically amenable to the writ jurisdiction. Further, it has been averred that even assuming that the petitioners had any grievance regarding service conditions, fixation of pay or denial of ACPS, the same is essentially a service/contractual dispute between employees and a Co-operative Society and such disputes can be raised under the H.P. Co-operative Societies Act/Rules/ Cooperative Tribunal/Registrar mechanism and also under the applicable service rules/industrial forum. The petitioners have specific, adequate and efficacious alternative remedy, which can be invoked. The petitioners have already been extended the benefit of higher initial pay corresponding to the re- revised pay scale of Rs.10300-34800 + Rs.3200 GP, instead of their actual normal pay scale of Rs.5910-20200 + Rs.1900 GP. The grievance raised pertains only to the mode and manner of 7 financial upgradation (ACPS) and interpretation of pay- revision/clarificatory instructions. Neither fundamental right nor any specific statutory right has been pleaded to be violated. The controversy involves complex issues relating to pay fixation, corresponding pay levels, re-revised scales, Punjab Pay Commission recommendations and ACPS clarificatory instructions. The petitioners were appointed in the year 2017 and completed four years of service in 2021. The alleged entitlement to 1st ACPS would have arisen in 2021. However, the petition has been instituted in the year 2025, after a lapse of several years and as such the petition is hit by delay and laches. It has further been averred that during this interregnum, the pay revision, implementation of revised pay rules of 2022 and clarificatory instructions have come into force and the petitioners cannot now reopen settled pay structures after having accepted the higher initial pay under the re-revised scales. The petitioners have already been substantially benefited by being placed in the re-revised pay 8 scale of Rs.10300-34800+Rs.3200 GP (with corresponding level-3 pay of Rs.33,300/- from 01.01.2016) instead of the actual scale of Rs.5910-20200+ Rs.1900 GP (corresponding Level-3 pay Rs.20,200/-). As per clarificatory instructions on ACPS dated 26.02.2013 (Annexure R-1), where a financial enhancement has already been granted, separate ACPS benefits are not admissible. As such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as misconceived. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and also perused the record carefully. 12. Mr. Surender Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petition is maintainable in view of the judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of the Court in CWP No.4031 of 2021, titled, Suresh Kaushal vs. State of H.P. and others. A perusal of the judgment reveals that the petition is maintainable even if the Bank is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution of India. Relevant paras of the judgment read as under:- 9 “11. Taking the issue of maintainability first, it will be relevant to notice the mandate as rendered by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in C. K. Malhotra (supra). The relevant extract of the same is reproduced as under:- “98. Consequently, we have no hesitation in holding that the three Societies, namely. The Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Ltd.; The Kangra Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, and the Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Marketing and Development Federation Ltd, are not other authorities' and, as such, cannot be characterised as 'State' when the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution and the same are also not authority within the meaning and for the purpose of Article 226 of the Constitution. Order passed by the Societies under their respective service regulations against its employees, as such, or in connection with employment cannot be corrected by way of writ petitions. The petitions also would not be maintainable in order to challenge the action of the Registrar since the same is not an exercise of statutory power conferred upon him under the provisions of the Act or the Rules but an exercise of powers by him under service regulations framed under Bye-laws having no force of law. The writ petition also will not be maintainable since none of the three Societies are discharging any public functions.” 12. Indisputably, it was mandated firstly that the Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Limited was not the other authority to be characterised as State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and was also not an authority for the purpose of Article 226 of the Constitution. It was further held that the order passed by the Society under its service regulations against its employees as such or any kind of employment cannot be corrected by way of writ petition. The petitions to challenge the action of Registrar were also held to be not maintainable since the same was not an exercise of statutory powers conferred upon him under the provisions of the Act or the rules but an exercise of powers by him under service regulations framed under 10 bye-laws having no force of law. Further, the writ petitions against the bank were held to be not maintainable since the Society was not discharging any public functions. 13. The pronouncement in C. K. Malhotra (supra) came for consideration before a Full bench of this Court in CWP No. 3634 of 2012, titled as, Vikram Chauhan vs. Managing Director & others along with connected matters reported in Latest HLJ 2013 (H.P.) 742 (FB). The Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court after taking notice of the question referred to it observed as under:- “The Division Bench while hearing CWP NO 3634 of 2012-D vide order dated 20 July, 2012 has referred the following question to be considered by the Full Bench. "Whether the Kangra Central Co-operative Bank, the Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Ltd and the Jogindra Central Co- operative Bank, are 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and whether a writ would lie against them?" 2. The question, as formulated raises two independent issues. Firstly, whether the State Cooperative Banks are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution? The second question, which, in our view is an independent question, is, whether a writ would lie against those Cooperative Banks.” 14. After discussing the law on the issues, Hon’ble Full Bench answered the formulated issues as under:- “15 For the view taken by us on both facets of the referred questions, proceed to answer the Reference as under: (1) The question as to whether Kangra Bank is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, is no more res Integra. It has been authoritatively answered by the Apex Court in S.S. Rana's case (supra). (2) Even in the case of H.P, State Cooperative Bank Ltd., the question has been answered by the Division Bench of our High Court in Chandresh Kumar Malhotra's case (supra). There is no conflicting decision of coordinate Bench of this Court necessitating pronouncement on that question by the Full Bench. (3) In the case of Jogindra Central Cooperative Bank, the decision in Mehar Chand's case (supra) is rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court and no 11 conflicting decision of the co-ordinate Bench muchless of the Division Bench or Larger Bench of our High Court with regard to the stated Bank has been brought to our notice. In any case, the said question can be conveniently answered by the Division Bench in appropriate proceedings whether in the form of writ petition or Reference made by the learned Single Judge of this Court, as the case may be. As and when such occasion arises, the issue can be answered on the basis of settled legal principles and including keeping in mind the exposition of S.S. Rana's case (supra) of the Apex Court concerning another Cooperative Bank constituted under the Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Act. (4) As regards the second part of the question as to whether a writ would lie against the stated Cooperative Banks, we hold that it is not appropriate to give a definite answer to this question. For, it would depend on several attending factors. Further, even if the said Banks were held to be not a State within the meaning of Article 12, the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can certainly issue a writ or order in the nature of writ even against any person or Authority, if the fact situation of the case so warrants. In other words, writ can lie even against a Corporative Society. Whether the same should be issued by the High Court would depend on the facts of each case.” 15. Thus, the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in C.K. Malhotra was upheld in so far as it had held that the Bank was not a State or other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. However, while answering the second facet of the issue, the Hon’ble Full Bench specifically held that no definite answer could be given to the question referred to it and would depend on several attending factors. Even if the Bank was held to be not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution was held jurisdiction to issue a writ or order in nature of writ even against any person or authority, if the fact situation of the case warranted. It has further been held that the writ can lie even against the co- operative authorities, however, its maintainability would 12 depend on the facts of each case. 16. Recently, in petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 1246 of 2015, titled as, The Kangra Central Co-operative Bank Pensioners Welfare Association (Regt.) vs. State of H.P., three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court after taking the notice of what has been held by the Full Bench in Vikram Chauhan (supra) has held as under:- “The issue concerning maintainability was considered by the Full bench and the observations made by the Full bench summed up the law on the point quite succinctly. On the facts as found by the Single Judge, which were recorded in paragraph 19 of the judgment, without entering into any other question, in our view, the petition as filed was perfectly maintainable. The Division Bench was in error in setting aside the view taken by the Single Judge in allowing the writ petition and in rejecting the review petition.” 17. In view of above exposition, it cannot be said that the writ against the Bank will not be maintainable in any circumstance.” 13. Again in another judgment passed in CWPOA No.3767 of 2019, titled, Anil Abrol and others Vs. H.P. State Cooperative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. and others, it has been held that writ petition against the respondent-Bank is maintainable. Therefore, arguments raised by the learned Senior counsel for the respondent-Bank that the writ petition is not maintainable is rejected. 14. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have been appointed as Junior Clerks in the months of 13 September/October, 2017 and had completed four years of service in the months of September/October, 2021 and further they did not get any promotion during this period. The petitioners have been promoted to the post of Executive Assistant in the year 2023. It is also not in dispute that the instructions dated 09.08.2012 are not applicable to the respondent-Bank. The plea taken by the respondent-Bank that the petitioners, were already granted the financial upgradation when they were appointed to the post of Junior Clerk, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that as per ACPS, an employee who had completed four years’ service but less than eight years of service in the cadre was to be placed in the next grade pay in the hierarchy of grade pays if not got promotion. The relevant para of the ACPS dated 09.08.2012 (Annexure P-1) is reproduced hereunder: “(b) An employee who has completed four years service but less than 8 years service in a cadre will be placed in next grade pay in the hierarchy of grade pays and his pay will be fixed at next higher stage in the pay band. If the pay so fixed is less than the minimum of higher 14 pay band than his pay will be fixed at the minimum of higher pay band. The next increment in such cases will be given after qualifying service of 12 months in the higher pay band.” 15. A perusal of the above para clearly reveals that the employees are entitled to be placed in next grade pay in the hierarchy of grade pays and since the petitioner did not get any promotion within a period of four years and ultimately, they were promoted as Executive Assistants in the year 2023, they cannot be denied the benefit of ACPS. Not only this, in case of other employees of the respondent-Bank, who were appointed have been granted the benefit of ACPS immediately after completion of four years of service in the year 2016 and thus denying the said benefit to the petitioners is unjust, arbitrary and discriminatory. 16. Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, learned Senior counsel has placed much reliance upon the instructions dated 15.12.2011 (Annexure AR-1/1) to submit that once the petitioners, when they were initially appointed as Junior Clerk were already 15 granted the revised scale of pay of Rs.10300-34800+ GP of Rs.3200, the benefit of ACPS cannot be extended to them. However, the said submission cannot be accepted for the simple reason that after issuance of instructions dated 15.12.2011 by the Government of Punjab, the State Government had issued the instructions dated 09.08.2012 (Annexure P-1), whereby the benefit of next grade pay in the hierarchy of grade pays was held to be granted to the employees, who do not get any promotion within four years of their service. 17. In the present case, as already noticed above, the petitioners were not promoted to the next higher post within four years of their service and, therefore, they are entitled to get the benefit of ACPS after completion of four years’ service. 18. Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, learned Senior counsel for the respondent-Bank further placed much reliance upon the instructions dated 26.02.2013 (Annexure AR-1/3), to contend that as per these instructions, for the purpose of granting 16 benefit of ACPS under 4-9-14 and 8-16-24-32, the re-revision of pay structures shall be treated as financial enhancement and as such the petitioners are not entitled to get the benefit of ACPS, once they have already been granted the financial upgradation when they were initially appointed to the posts of Junior Clerk. However, the said submission cannot be accepted for the simple reason that as per instructions dated 09.08.2012, the employees who do not get any promotion were held entitled to the benefit of ACPS after completion of 4, 9 and 14 years of service. It is relevant to mention here that a coordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.5536 of 2020, titled, Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others along with connected matters, decided on 01.11.2023, had the occasion to consider the Notification dated 26.02.2013 and held that financial upgradation, if any, on account of pay revision/revision of grade pay cannot be a ground to deny benefit of financial upgradation under ACPS which become due after completion of 4, 9 and 14 years as per ACPS. The 17 relevant paras of the judgment read as under: “11. Careful perusal of aforesaid instructions clearly reveals that an employee is granted three enhancements/ upgradations/ promotion, he/ she shall not be eligible for grant of further benefit, if any, under ACPS, but in the case at hand, petitioners after being appointed as JBT though were given two benefits of financial upgradation under ACPS, first benefit was granted under old ACPS after their having completed eight years service, whereas second benefit was granted in their favour after their having completed nine years service under new ACPS and third benefit in terms of new ACPS, for which petitioners have already opted, is being denied on the ground that vide order dated 26.02.2013 grade pay of the petitioners has been enhanced w.e.f. 1.10.2012. However, as observed hereinabove, financial upgradation, if any, on account of pay revision/revision of grade pay cannot be a ground to deny benefit of financial upgradations under ACPS, which become due after completion of four, nine and fourteen years as per new ACPS. Though, it has been vehemently argued on behalf of the respondents/State that grade pay of the petitioners was enhanced, as a result of which, their pay was enhanced, but as has been taken note above, financial enhancement on account of annual increment or general pay revision, based on pay commission, is not to be considered while considering the case of an employee for grant of benefit of ACPS. Since, in the case at hand pay of the petitioners came to be enhanced on account of grant of grade pay, benefit of financial upgradation in terms of provision contained under ACPS cannot be denied. 12. True, it is that careful perusal of communication 26.02.2023, which has been relied heavily by the respondents, suggests that a government employee after rendering service of 4,9 and 14 years in a post or posts 18 without any financial enhancement in the same cadre/post, if not promoted to higher level on account of non availability of a vacancy or non- existence of promotional avenue in the cadre, shall be granted the grade pay, which is next higher in the hierarchy of grade pay given in the schedule annexed to Revised Pay Rules, 2009 upto maximum grade pay of Rs.8900/- and on placement in the next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of grade pays after service of 4, 9 and 14 years, but such benefit of re-revision of pay shall be treated as financial enhancement for the purpose of granting benefit under 4-9-14 and 8-16-24-32 but there is nothing to dispute that vide notification dated 7th July 2014 (Annexure P-5), it specifically came to be clarified that once an employee has already got three enhancements/financial up- gradations i.e. grant of progression under the new or old ACPS or promotion or any other financial enhancement, except the annual increment or the general pay revision based on the pay commission, in fourteen years or more during his/her entire service will not be entitled for placement in next higher grade pay in the ACP Scheme introduced vide instructions dated 9th August 2012. It is quite apparent from perusal of aforesaid letter that financial upgradation, if any, on account of pay revision cannot be a ground to deny benefit under ACPS. Since pay of the petitioners came to be enhanced on account of enhancement in grade pay, benefit of financial upgradation in terms of ACPS cannot be denied. 13. Consequently, in view of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court finds merit in the instant petitions and accordingly same are allowed. Office order dated 3.08.2018 (Annexure A-8) is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of financial upgradation under ACPS (4-9-14) time scale/enhancement after their having completed 14 years of service at par with their 19 counterparts from the due date. Since petitioners have been fighting for their rightful claim for years together, this Court hopes and trusts that needful shall be done in terms of the directions contained in the instant judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.” 19. Learned senior counsel for the respondent-Bank has further contended that the dispute regarding ACPS can be raised under the HP Co-operative Societies Act/Rules/Co- operative Tribunal/Registrar. However, the said contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the service disputes cannot be adjudicated under the Act and Rules. It is admitted fact that there is no Tribunal having been created by the State Government to redress the issues pertaining to the employees, who are serving with the Banks, which has been created under the HP Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 and thus the said plea is rejected. 20 So far as another plea that the issue relating to pay fixation, corresponding pay levels, re-revised scales etc. is to be adjudicated only by the expert bodies is concerned, no doubt, it is not within the realm of the Court to fix the pay 20 scale of an employee and it is within the domain of the executive or the employer. However, in the present case, the petitioners are not seeking the equation of the pay scale of their category either on the analogy of pay scale granted to the employees of the Punjab Government or in other departments of the State Government. The petitioners are only seeking the grant of benefit of ACPS, which admittedly is to be enforced by the Court once the benefit thereof has not been extended to them. As already noticed above, it is not the case of the respondent-Bank that ACPS is not applicable to its employees, but the only plea taken is that once the petitioners have been granted financial upgradation at the time of offering them appointments as Junior Clerks, they are not entitled to get the same. Since the petitioners did not get any promotion within four years of their initial service, they are entitled to the benefit of ACPS once the benefit has been granted to other employees of the respondent-Bank. It is a case of discrimination. 21 21. The other ground raised by the respondent-Bank in the reply that the petition is hit by delay and laches on the ground that the entitlement to 1st ACPS, had arisen in the year 2021 and the petition has been instituted in the year 2025. Since the non-grant of the benefit of ACPS is affecting the petitioners every month when they get salary, it is a recurring cause of action and they cannot be denied the said benefit. At the most, the petitioners can be denied the benefit of the arrears on account of ACPS, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648, and the relevant paras of the judgment read as under: “7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any 22 order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. 8. In this case, the delay of sixteen years would affect the consequential claim for arrears. The High Court was not justified in directing payment of arrears relating to sixteen years, and that too with interest. It ought to have restricted the relief relating to arrears to only three years before the date of writ petition, or from the date of demand to date of writ petition, whichever was lesser. It ought not to have granted interest on arrears in such circumstances.” 22. From a perusal of the aforementioned dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is crystal clear that the grant of benefit of ACPS is affecting the petitioners every month and it is a recurring cause of action. The petitioners are denied the arrears from the initial date of the benefit accrued in their 23 favour in the year 2021 and the same shall be paid to them three years prior to the filing of the writ petition. 23. Consequently, both the petitions are allowed and the respondent(s)-Bank is directed to grant the benefit of ACPS to the petitioners after completion of four years of service with all consequential benefits. However, the petitioners shall be paid the arrears from three years prior to the date of filing the present petition. In case arrears are not paid to the petitioners within three months from today, the respondent-Bank shall pay interest on the arrears @6% per annum from today till actual payment. 24. Both the petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 22 nd June , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Kiran) Judge