2026:HHC:28229 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.1504 of 2019 Decided on : 08 th July, 2026 ____________________________________________________________________ Rajinder Kumar ...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. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued quashing the impugned order dated 18.2.2013 contained in Annexure P-6. (ii) That a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Electrician Grade I and further also to give the pace scale of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Rs.4020–6200 to the Petitioner, in view of the judgment dated 5.7.2010 passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWP(T) No.9624/2008 (OA No.2565/2003) titled as Dinesh Nandan Versus State of H.P. and others.” 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, key facts of the case are that the petitioner after doing Matriculation in the year 1989, did two years Diploma from ITI in the trade of Electrician. Thereafter, he got his name enrolled with the Employment Exchange. Later on, he was engaged Electrician on daily wage basis by the respondent-Department on 01.01.1992 and worked for 240 days in each calendar year. His services were regularized, as per office order dated 07.12.2002 (Annexure P-3) in the pay scale of Rs.3120-5160 on the post of Electrician. 3. It has been averred in the petition that the petitioner on the initial date of his appointment has performed the duties as Electrician Grade-I and whenever the wages of daily wage workers were enhanced, the same were released to him. Though, the petitioner was performing the duties on the post of Electrician Grade-I, but he was not given 3 the pay scales as per other categories. It has been averred that in the matter of one Dinesh Nandan, who had approached this Court by way of CWP(T) No.9624 of 2008, titled, Dinesh Nandan Vs. State of H.P. & others, this Court had allowed the petition on 05.07.2010 and after quashing the office order dated 05.12.2002, direction was given to the respondents to grant work charged status as Electrician Grade-I as per the judgment passed in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P. and others, 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316. 4. After the aforesaid decision passed by the Court, the petitioner had also approached this Court by way of CWP No.10110 of 2012-A, titled, Rajinder Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., which was disposed of on 06.12.2012, directing the respondents that in case the judgment in Dinesh Nandan’s case (supra) has become final and implemented and in case the petitioner is also similarly situated, a similar treatment shall be given to him. 5. After the direction issued by this Court, respondent No.2 passed an office order on 18.02.2013 4 (Annexure P-6) and the claim of the petitioner came to be rejected on the grounds; firstly, that his case is not found similar to the case of Dinesh Nandan, because the record shows that Dinesh Nandan was designated as Electrician Grade-I throughout on muster roll, whereas the petitioner was simply designated as Electrician and not Electrician Grade I; secondly, it has been averred that the judgment in case of Dinesh Nandan was challenged by filing SLP, which was dismissed in limine without going into the merits of the case and the Superintending Engineer had implemented the same during the proceedings in contempt petition and granted him the pay scale of Junior Technician Grade-II, which appears to be not in conformity with the nomenclature of pay structure and hence wrong and not liable to be granted to any other person; thirdly, it was observed that the Superintending Engineer granted this scale as a measure personal to Dinesh Nandan only to avoid contempt proceeding in extreme technical situation of dismissal of LPA and SLP; fourthly, it was also found that in many other similar 5 cases, like that of Dinesh Nandan such as Civil Review No.10/11, the High Court has amended the order to grant work charge status as Junior Technician instead of Electrician Grade-I by allowing Civil Review petition; fifthly, it was also seen that the regularization of the petitioner has been made in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case, wherein it has specifically been directed to grant work charge status in the lowest grade and admittedly, as per status of Electrician prior to 1996, the lowest grade was Electrician Grade-II and the post of Electrician Grade-I was a promotional post and; sixthly, the petitioner is estopped from claiming these reliefs, especially when he had accepted his regularization as Electrician Grade-II and now after more than 10 years, it is not feasible to re-open the case, at this belated stage. 6. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the office order dated 18.02.2013 (Annexure P-6) has assailed the same before this Court inter alia on the grounds that the action on the part of the respondents in treating the similar situate 6 employees with different yardsticks is clear cut case of arbitrariness and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It has further been averred that the respondent-Department has released the benefit of pay scale of Rs.4020-6200 to the workers, who were working on daily wage in the category of highly skilled workers, but the same has been denied to the petitioner. The action on the part of respondents in giving the lower pay scale to the petitioner is against the principles of service jurisprudence, as the employees of same category cannot be denied the benefit of same pay scale. The respondent-Department is under obligation to grant benefit of the judgment passed in Dinesh Nandan’s case (supra) and further once the petitioner had been performing the duties of Electrician, he was entitled to the same pay scale. It has further been averred that the impugned order is otherwise not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. The respondents filed reply to the petition and raised preliminary submissions that once the petitioner had 7 accepted the regularization during the year 2002, his claim is barred under Section 10 of CPC, as the issue involved in the present case was directly in issue in CWP No.10110 of 2012-A, which was disposed of vide order dated 06.12.2012 (wrongly mentioned as vide order dated 18.12.2013). The same has been considered by the competent authority. Further, the present petition is hopelessly time barred. The petitioner is claiming the regularization w.e.f. 01.01.2002 after more than 10 years and hence, the same is defeated by law of delay and laches. 8. On merits, it has been averred that the petitioner was never engaged as Electrician Grade-I and further never performed the duties of Electrician Grade-I. In fact, prior to 1986, the initial grade of regular Electrician was Electrician Grade-II and the post of Electrician Grade-I was promotional post, but after 1986, the posts of Electrician have been clubbed and designated as Junior Technician (Electrician) and granted initial stage of Rs.950-1800 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. It has been admitted by the respondents that the petitioner had 8 worked as an Electrician on daily wage w.e.f. 1991 and was regularized as Junior Technician (Electrician) in the pay scale of Rs.3120-5160, on the basis of pay scale of regular Junior Technician (Electrician) and graded accordingly in the three tier pay scales at the appropriate stage. It has further been averred that the post of Electrician Grade-I was 100% promotional post and, therefore, the petitioner neither fulfills the Recruitment and Promotion Rules (for short “R&P Rules”) nor there are R&P Rules applicable after 1986. The case of the petitioner is not similar to Dinesh Nandan’s case. The other points which were taken by respondent No.2, while rejecting the claim of the petitioner have been taken in the reply which have been noticed above. 9. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents and controverted the facts. 10. This Court vide order dated 04.12.2025, had given the directions to the respondents to file the supplementary affidavit to the following effects: “(i) Mandays Chart showing period of daily wage 9 service, including daily wage rates given to petitioner (Trained ITI Electrician), be placed on record; (ii) Notification or norms providing for regularizing ITI Trained Electrician, who was drawing higher daily rate, be placed on record; and (iii) Respondents shall indicate the entire incumbency of ITI Trained Electricians, who were given higher daily rate or otherwise have been rgularized in pay cale of Rs.4020-6200/- through the State in Respondent-Department.” 11. The respondents in compliance with the directions given by the Court have filed supplementary affidavit and candidly admitted that the petitioner appears to be similarly situated to the persons depicted in Annexures R-I and R-III, who have already received the benefit of regularization and Electrician Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs.4020-6200, as per applicable R&P Rules. The relevant para of the supplementary affidavit reads as under: “4. That upon examination of the records, it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner appears to be similarly situated to the persons depicted in Annexure R-I and R-III, who have already received the benefit of regularization as Electrician Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs.4020- 6200/- as per the applicable Recruitment and Promotion Rules.” 10 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 13. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of CWP No.10110 of 2012-A, which came to be disposed of on 06.12.2012, whereby a direction was given to the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner in case, he is similarly situated to that of Dinesh Nandan. At that time, the respondents, did not raise the objection with respect to the fact that the petitioner has not approached the Court well in time. Once, the respondents have not taken that plea, the same cannot be entertained at this stage. Even otherwise, the said plea cannot be entertained for the simple reason that non-grant of the higher pay scale to the petitioner, is affecting him every month when he is drawing less salary on account of granting him lesser pay scale and this Court to balance the equity can at the most restrict the arrears after grant of the pay scale, to which the petitioner is legally entitled from the initial date of appointment to three years 11 prior to institution of the earlier petition. 14. The second objection taken by the respondents in the reply that the claim of the petitioner is barred under Section 10 of CPC is not at all sustainable for the reason that in the earlier writ petition, the petitioner had claimed the same relief as granted to Dinesh Nandan and the Court instead of adjudicating the matter on merits, had given the directions to the respondents to consider his claim, noticing therein that in case the judgment passed in Dinesh Nandan’s case has become final and in case the same has been implemented, the case of the petitioner, if similarly situated, similar treatment shall be given to him. Respondent No.2 rather than granting him the same relief as granting to Dinesh Nandan, rejected his claim that Dinesh Nandan was engaged throughout on Muster Roll as Electrician Grade-I, which is factually not borne out from the record. If the judgment passed in Dinesh Nandan’s case is perused, the respondents in the reply had taken the stand that he was initially engaged as Electrician Grade-II. Once in the mandays 12 chart, appended with the reply filed in the case of Dinesh Nandan’s case, it shows that he was appointed as Electrician and similar is the case of the petitioner, who has also been shown to be appointed as Electrician, as evident from a perusal of Annexure R-I, appended with the supplementary affidavit filed by the respondents, the petitioner is similarly situate and the decision taken by respondent No.2 to deny him benefit, noticing that in Dinesh Nandan’s case, he was appointed as Electrician Grade-I, is totally contrary to the record. Further, respondent No.2 while filing supplementary affidavit has conceded that the petitioner appears to be similarly situated person as depicted in Annexure R-III, who have already received the benefit of regularization as Electrician Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs.4020-6200/- as per applicable Recruitment and Promotion Rules. 15. The second plea which has been taken by respondent No.2, while rejecting the claim of the petitioner that in Dinesh Nandan’s case, the judgment was implemented under the fear of the contempt proceedings, 13 cannot be accepted, for the simple reason that the State Govt. has laid challenge to the said judgment before the Supreme Court and the SLP preferred by them was dismissed. 16. The third ground which has been taken by the respondents that the pay scale granted to Dinesh Nandan, was personal measure to him, cannot be a ground to reject the claim of the petitioner. 17. It has also been noticed in the order that the Hon’ble Court had taken the decision in Civil Review No.10/2011 that the order to grant work charge status as Junior Technician instead of Electrician Gr-I, while allowing the review petition, cannot even defeat the claim of the petitioner, once this Court had given the direction that in case the facts of the case of the petitioner are similar to Dinesh Nandan’s case, similar benefits shall be given to him. 18. The other grounds taken while rejecting the claim of the petitioner are also not sustainable, in view of the fact that the respondents have now accepted in supplementary affidavit that that the petitioner is similar situate to other 14 employees, who have already been granted the benefit of regularization as Electrician Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs.4020-6200, as per applicable R&P Rules and, thus, the petitioner cannot be denied the said benefit. Thus, the impugned order dated 18.02.2013 passed by respondent No.2, while rejecting the claim of the petitioner is unsustainable in law as well as totally erroneous and contrary to the facts as culled out hereinabove. 19. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 18.02.2013 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside with a further direction to the respondents to grant the pay scale of Rs.4020-6200/- to the petitioner with all consequential benefits w.e.f. 07.12.2002 on notional basis and on actual basis three years prior to the institution of the earlier petition, which was instituted in November 2012. In case the arrears are not paid to the petitioner within three months from today, the same shall be paid along with interest @ 6% per annum from today till actual payment to him. 15 20. The petition is accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 08 th July, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge