2026:HHC:29441 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.4473 of 2019 Decided on: 17.07.2026 Bali Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Lokendar Paul Thakur and Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner by way of present petition has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “i) That a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents 1 and 2 to forbear from acting upon the orders dated 26.12.2012 (Annexure P-4) and treat it as nonest and directions or order be issued to quash the said orders dated 26.12.2012 (Annexure P-4) and the petitioner be granted all consequential benefits. ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued directing the respondent to make corrections in the pay by removing the anomaly and petitioner be granted the revision of scale from time to time i.e., in the pay scale of 3120- 5160 w.e.f. from 1.1.1996 with interest with all 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:29441 consequential benefits and revising his pension accordingly.” 2. The undisputed facts, which emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Patwari on 16.02.1981 and was posted in Consolidation Department of the State Government. Thereafter, due to vacancies in the Revenue Department, an option was sought from the Patwaris who were serving in the Consolidation Department, for posting in the Revenue Department and the petitioner also gave his option and posted in the Revenue Department vide office order dated 30.05.1987, where he joined his duties on 14.06.1988. It has been averred that the petitioner was granted the pay scale of Rs.1350-2400/- while posted in the Consolidation Department, however, when his services were taken over in the Revenue Department, he was not granted the due annual increments for the years 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992, without any fault on his part, which caused huge financial loss to him, when he retired from service. It has further been averred that he represented the Department that anomaly in the pay be corrected by verifying his service book and he may be granted revision of pay scale 3 2026:HHC:29441 of Rs.1350-2400/-. However, the Department remained silent and no correction was made in the pay scale of the petitioner. 3. It has also been averred that the petitioner was superannuated on 31.10.2008 and he started getting pension @ Rs.10,363/- per month, whereas one another person, namely Krishnu Ram, son of Sukh Ram, who had joined the Consolidation Department along with the petitioner on the same post and date, however, was getting pension @ Rs.12,000/- per month, who was junior to him in service. The petitioner represented to respondent No.1 vide representation dated 23.09.2011 to remove the anomaly, but when nothing was done, he approached this Court by way of CWP No.3898 of 2012-J, titled, Bali Ram vs. State of H.P. and another (Annexure P-3), which petition was disposed of on 24.05.2012, with a direction to respondent No.2 to look into the representation made by him and take appropriate action in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner. 4. In sequel to the direction given by this Court, respondent No.2 vide order dated 26.12.2012 (Annexure P- 4) rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that 4 2026:HHC:29441 the petitioner had joined the Revenue Department on 14.06.1988 after leaving the job from the Consolidation Department and his seniority is to be counted only from the said date, since the petitioner was neither transferred nor was sent on deputation. 5. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order dated 26.12.2012 passed by respondent No.2 filed the original application before the HP Administrative Tribunal (in short Tribunal) which has now been registered as present petition after abolition of the Tribunal inter alia on the grounds that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional inasmuch as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It has further been averred that respondent No.2 has passed the order in a mechanical manner without assigning any cogent reasons and service book of the petitioner was also not summoned, which clearly states that the petitioner was already getting the scale of Rs.1350-2400/- in respondent No.3-Department and his pay was to be protected when he joined the Revenue Department. However, he was fixed in the initial start of Rs.950-1800/- without verifying the service book. Respondents No.1 & 2 could not have fixed the petitioner in 5 2026:HHC:29441 a new lower scale when he was already getting the higher scale, as such, action on the part of respondent No.2 in rejecting the case of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside. 6. The respondents filed reply to the petition and averred that the original application is not maintainable in its form as the same has been preferred after about 19 years of passing of the order by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi regarding fixation of the pay of the petitioner. It has further been averred that petitioner was offered an option to join the Revenue Department as Patwari through the Director Consolidation by respondent No.1 vide letter dated 15.01.1987. Thereafter another reminder dated 12.02.1987 was issued by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3 and thereafter the posting order of the petitioner was issued by respondent No.2 on 30.05.1987. The petitioner did not join the Department of Revenue, within the period mentioned in the posting order and the Director Consolidation was requested to relieve him, so that he could join in the Revenue Department. Ultimately, the Director Consolidation relieved the petitioner on 13.06.1988 afternoon and thereafter he joined in the office of 6 2026:HHC:29441 respondent No.2 as Patwari on 14.06.1988. It has further been averred that the petitioner has joined the Revenue Department as a fresh candidate and his seniority has rightly been fixed amongst the cadre of Patwari in Revenue District Bilaspur, where 28 Patwaris have been found senior to him. So far as Krishanu Ram, who was posted as Patwari in Consolidation Department is concerned, his case is entirely different to the case of the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner had left the Consolidation Department as per his willing and his candidature in Revenue District Bilaspur was considered as fresh appointment and has rightly been placed in pay scale of Rs.950-25-1800/-. It has also been averred that the petitioner had earlier instituted OA No.2275 of 1993 before the Tribunal seeking the same relief as prayed for in the present petition, which was disposed of on 17.12.1993 directing the same to be considered as representation to Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. In compliance with the direction passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner was afforded with an opportunity of being heard by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi who passed order on 09.03.1994 (Annexure R-2/1) rejecting his claim. It has further been averred that the petitioner 7 2026:HHC:29441 remained silent after the passing of order and in the year 2012, approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.3898 of 2012; and this Court had disposed of the petition on 24.05.2012; and in compliance with the directions given by this Court, the petitioner was heard and thereafter an order has been passed on 26.12.2012. It has further been averred that the petitioner has rightly been placed in the pay scale of Rs.950-1800/-. 7. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply and not disputed the averments made in para No.5 of the preliminary submissions, where the respondents had stated that the petitioner had earlier approached the Tribunal and after the direction given by the Tribunal, an order dated 09.03.1994 was passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 9. The petition instituted by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed on the sole ground that he has not approached the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts. In the entire petition, the petitioner has not disclosed that earlier he had approached the Tribunal by 8 2026:HHC:29441 filing an Original Application No.2275 of 1993 seeking the same relief, which came to be disposed of on 17.12.1993. After passing of the order by the Tribunal, Divisional Commissioner, Mandi had passed an order on 09.03.1994, which has been placed on record along with supplementary affidavit as Annexure R-2/1, whereby the claim raised by the petitioner came to be rejected. Once the petitioner did not dispute the said fact, he does not deserve any relief, more especially when the Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India is exercising the extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. 10. Not only this, once the claim raised by the petitioner was rejected vide office order dated 09.03.1994, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, until and unless the said order is set at naught, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Even in the earlier petition instituted by the petitioner, which came to be disposed of on 24.05.2012, he did not apprise the Court that his claim had already been rejected. Had this fact been brought to the notice by the Court, this Court would not have given direction to respondent No.2 to decide the representation made by the petitioner. Once the claim raised by the 9 2026:HHC:29441 petitioner has already been rejected by the competent authority, the petitioner has misused the process of the Court as well as time that too without assailing the order, which was passed in the year 1994. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner stands retired, the Court is not imposing any cost. 11. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 17 th July , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge