2026:HHC:25825 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.1115 of 2019 Decided on: 30.06.2026 Kalag Ram Mehta and others ...Petitioners Versus The State of H P and another ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioners: Mr. A.K. Gupta, and Mr. Bonit Prakash, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioners, by way of present petition, have prayed for the following substantive relief:- “i. That the respondents may be ordered to appoint the petitioners on regular basis in the time scale and allowances at par with the other employees of the State of H.P. from the date of their initial absorption in the department with all the benefits incidental thereof such as full back wages and seniority etc. and the contracts may be declared illegal.s.” 2. The petitioners were earlier serving in various capacities such as Accountant, Warden, Cook, Aya and Helper, in the Red Cross Society, H.P., and their services 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:25825 were taken over by the respondents-Department, vide office order dated 12.01.2007 (Annexure P-1). Petitioners No.1 & 2 were posted as Warden and petitioners No.3 to 5 were posted as Cook, Aya and Helper respectively. The terms and conditions relating to taking over their services were fixed. As per the terms and conditions, the petitioners were granted the fixed remuneration. It has been averred that the petitioners have been absorbed against the sanctioned posts. 3. Since the petitioners were given the fixed salary, they approached this Court by way of CWP No.2053 of 2009, titled, Kalag Ram Mehta & ors. vs. State of H.P. & anr., seeking direction to the respondents to grant them the pay scale and other allowances at par with the other government employees of the H.P., w.e.f. the date of their absorption/appointment with all the benefits incidental thereof such as arrears etc. This Court while disposing of the petition on 26.10.2010 had observed that it is the case of the petitioners that they are similarly situate categories of employees and are being discriminated and further some of the employees, which have been taken over, have been put on scale where their services have been taken over in 3 2026:HHC:25825 similar circumstances and gave directions to the petitioners to point out these aspects by way of an appropriate representation before respondent No.1, who will look into the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law. Thereafter, respondent No.1 had considered the claim of the petitioners and issued the appointment orders to offer them appointment on contract basis. The petitioners have again approached this Court seeking the relief that they may be appointed on regular basis from the initial date of their appointment with all the benefits incidental thereto. 4. The respondents filed reply to the petition and averred that the petition is not maintainable in the present form, as no enforceable cause of action has accrued in their favour. The petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands and withheld material facts from the Court. The Indian Red Cross Society, HP State Branch was running an institute viz. Bal Grih, Dhalli, Shimla. During the annual general meeting of the Indian Red Cross Society, Himachal Pradesh State Branch, held on 15th December, 2005, under the chairmanship of his Excellency Governor, Himachal Pradesh, the Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh-cum- President, State Management Committee (Red Cross), on 4 2026:HHC:25825 the issue of increase of monthly salary of staff posted in Bal Grih Dhalli, it was decided that all the inmates of Bal Grih may be admitted in Tutikandi, Masli Ashram of Shimla Distt. and in Kinnaur Ashram and five employees, who were working in this institution may be adjusted in various similar Ashrams/Institutions run in the State against vacant posts. In view of this decision, the State Government took the decision on 04.09.2006 to adjust the staff of Bal Grih, Dhalli in the departmental Ashrams. Accordingly, respondent No.2 issued orders on 12.01.2007 (Annexure P-1), where it has clearly been mentioned that taken over staff of Bal Grih, Dhalli run by Indian Red Cross Society will be given fixed salary and they will be placed on junior rank to the departmental employees in the respective cadre and will be governed in accordance with the Rules/regulations of State Government employees of similar categories. The petitioners have been posted in different Ashrams, which are being run in accordance with the norms of the schemes viz. Mukhya Mantri Bal Udhar Yojna notified by the State Government vide Notification dated 28.09.2006. As per this scheme, staff to be posted in various Ashrams has to be paid the fixed salary. It has also been averred that the 5 2026:HHC:25825 petitioners were appointed on contract basis vide orders issued on 01.10.2012. 5. The petitioners filed rejoinder to the reply and controverted the facts. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed against the sanctioned posts. Once the petitioners were appointed against the sanctioned posts, they were to be paid minimum pay scale of the post, held by them. No doubt in the office order issued on 12.01.2007, they have been held to be paid fixed salary, but the said condition is not only arbitrary, but unjust too. Once the services of the petitioners were taken over by the respondents-Department, as per the decision taken by the State Government, they were at least to be paid the minimum pay scale of the post against which their services have been taken over. As per the office order dated 12.1.2007, the petitioners were to rank junior to the departmental employees in their respective cadre from the date of their joining in the department, but once they have performed the same and similar duties, as have been 6 2026:HHC:25825 performed by the regular employees, they are to be paid the minimum pay scale. 8. The respondents have averred in the reply that their services have been taken over and further they were to be given fixed salary. No doubt there is such stipulation in the office order, but since the petitioners were serving in the Indian Red Cross Society, they had no option, except to accept the terms and conditions of the office order. The petitioners after taking over of their services had raked up the issue before the respondents, but when nothing was done, they had approached the Court by way of writ petition, which came to be disposed of on 26.10.2010, giving direction to respondent No.1 to consider their claim specifically noticing that as per the petitioners they are being discriminated and the respondents ought to have granted them the minimum pay scale from the date of taking over their services and further to give other service benefits. Since the petitioners have been appointed against the sanctioned posts, they are at least entitled to the minimum pay scale of the posts held by them from the date of their engagements. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab 7 2026:HHC:25825 and others versus Jagjit Singh and others, (2017) 1 SCC 148 has held that the employee is entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay scale at the lowest grade in the regular pay scale, extended to regular employees holding the same post. 10. The plea taken by the petitioners that the respondents may be directed to appoint them on regular basis in the time scale and allowances at par with other employees of the State of H.P. cannot be accepted for the reason that the respondents had taken over their services when they were serving in the Indian Red Cross Society, Himachal Pradesh. They are only entitled to the minimum pay scale, of the posts against which they were appointed after taking over their services. 11. 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 has no bargaining power and the employer is always on a dominant position. Since the petitioners were serving in the Indian Red Cross Society, they were apprehending that in case they do not accept the terms and conditions of the office order dated 12.01.2007, 8 2026:HHC:25825 their services may not be taken over by the respondents. Once their services are governed in accordance with the same rules and regulations and other service conditions, which are applicable to similar categories of Government employees and further they have been held to be considered junior to the persons, who are already serving in the respective categories, the petitioners cannot be denied the minimum pay scale. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners have not discharged the same and similar duties as discharged by the regular employees working with the respondents, who have been considered senior to them on the date of their taking over their service. Thus, the action on the part of the respondents to take over their services on fixed salary is totally arbitrary, discriminatory and unjust inasmuch as the same is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No doubt it is the prerogative of the employer to grant a particular scale to its employees, but once the petitioners have discharged the same duties and functions as discharged by the regular employees, they are at least entitled to the minimum of the pay scale of the posts held by them as granted to the regular employees of the 9 2026:HHC:25825 respondent-Department. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in recent judgment passed in Civil Appeal No._______ of 2025 (arising out of SLP(C) No.1347 of 2024, titled, Shah Samir Bharatbhai & Ors. versus The State of Gujarat & Ors., has succinctly dealt with the issue of grant of minimum pay scale and approved the view earlier taken in State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh. 13. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant the minimum pay scale of the post held by each of the petitioners at the time of taking over their services on notional basis and on actual basis three years prior to the date of institution of the present petition. The respondents are directed to pay arrears to the petitioners within three months from today and in case the arrears are not released and paid, the respondents shall pay interest @6% per annum from today till actual payment. No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 30 th June , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge