Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16678 (HP)

Rajinder Kumar - v. State of H. P.

2026-02-26

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj

body2026
JUDGMENT : Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, J. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “(i)  That a writ in the nature of certiorari may be issued and Annexure P-5 dated 23.04.2009 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner as per the provisions of FR 22(1) (a) (I) at Rs.6600/- as on 21.06.2007 with all consequential benefits of pay arrears, seniority etc. etc. along with interest @9% PA. (iii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant the benefit of past service as rendered by the petitioner in the previous department for the purpose of promotion to the of either Headmaster or Lecturer (Maths) and in the alternative, at least petitioner may very kindly be granted the benefit of seniority from the year 1997 when he passed M.Sc. (Maths) as the similar treatment is given to all serving incumbents in the respondent department.” 2. The precise grievance as raised in the writ petition is that the petitioner was earlier appointed as a Constable in the Himachal Pradesh Police Department in the year 1988 and thereafter was promoted as Head Constable in the year 2006. During the service period, the petitioner acquired the qualifications of Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) (Non-Medical), Master of Science (M.Sc.) and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.). After obtaining the aforementioned qualifications, the petitioner became eligible to hold the post of TGT (Non-Medical). 3. After the prior approval of the Department, the petitioner was offered appointment to the post of TGT (Non-Medical) on batch-wise basis and vide office order dated 20.06.2007 (Annexure P-1), he was relieved of his duties and was asked to join the post of TGT (Non-Medical) w.e.f. 21.06.2007 (afternoon). 4. After joining with the Education Department, his pay was fixed as per Annexure P-2. However, vide letter dated 07.11.2008 (Annexure P-4), respondent No.2 had written to the Deputy Director(s) of Elementary Education, Mandi and Bilaspur, H.P., to provide information regarding the appointment of the petitioner and thereafter, vide communication dated 23.04.2009 (Annexure P-5), the Deputy Director, Elementary Education, Mandi, H.P., had fixed the pay of the petitioner at Rs. 6200/- with DNI 01.09.2007 in accordance with FR 22(I)(a)(2). 5. 6200/- with DNI 01.09.2007 in accordance with FR 22(I)(a)(2). 5. It has been averred in the writ petition that the petitioner was earlier serving as Head Constable in the Police Department in the pay scale of Rs. 4020–6200/- and while posting him as TGT (Non-Medical), his pay scale was of Rs. 5480–8925/-. Once he has been appointed to a post carrying higher pay scale, he is to be governed as per the provisions contained in FR 22(I)(a)(1) and thus entitled for two advance increments. 6. It has further been averred that in similar circumstances, one Sh. Janinder Kumar, who was earlier serving as Head Constable in the Police Department of the State Government and had also submitted technical resignation, the respondents had granted him the benefit of two advance increments over and above the basic pay last drawn by him in the Police Department. 7. It has further been averred that when the said person, namely Sh. Janinder Kumar, was appointed as Drawing Master in the Education Department, the pay scale at the relevant time was Rs. 5000–8100/-. 8. The respondents have filed the reply to the petition and have averred that the case of the petitioner has been examined/decided as per the directions of the Government under the provisions of FR 22(I)(a)(2). It has also been averred that the pay of the petitioner has rightly been fixed in consultation with the Government and so far as the case of Sh. Janinder Kumar is concerned, in case he has been granted the said benefit of pay fixation under FR 22(I)(a)(1), then the matter will be inquired into and necessary action will be taken accordingly. 9. Further, it has been stated that Sh. Janinder Kumar joined the respondent-Department as Drawing Master and the post of Drawing Master, being a District Cadre post, the Deputy Director, Elementary Education, Mandi, is the appointing and controlling authority and he had fixed the pay at his own level, whereas, the petitioner, being TGT (Non-Medical), his pay has been fixed by respondent No. 2, being the State Cadre authority. Further, it has been stated that there is no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 10. I have heard Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Sh. Rajesh Kumar, as well as Mr. Amit Kumar Chaudhary, learned Deputy Advocate General, representing the respondents-State. I have also gone through the record. Further, it has been stated that there is no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 10. I have heard Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Sh. Rajesh Kumar, as well as Mr. Amit Kumar Chaudhary, learned Deputy Advocate General, representing the respondents-State. I have also gone through the record. 11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was earlier working on the post of Head Constable with the State Government and was in the lower pay scale. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner joined the respondent-Department on 21.06.2007 after the approval of the State Government. It is also not in dispute that the pay scale for the post of TGT (Non-Medical), at the relevant time, when the petitioner was posted, was Rs. 5480–8925/- in the Education Department. 12. Admittedly, the pay scale of the post of Head Constable was of Rs.4020-120-4260-140-4400-150-5000-160-5800-200-6200 as evident from perusal of Annexure P-1 (page-18). It is also not in dispute that the pay of the petitioner was initially fixed at Rs.6200/-. The only issue which arises for consideration before this Court is to the effect that whether the petitioner is entitled to the additional increment as per the provisions contained in FR 22(I) (a) (1) or not. Therefore, before proceeding further, it is relevant to quote the provisions of FR 22(I) (a) (1), which read as under :- “F.R. 22. The only issue which arises for consideration before this Court is to the effect that whether the petitioner is entitled to the additional increment as per the provisions contained in FR 22(I) (a) (1) or not. Therefore, before proceeding further, it is relevant to quote the provisions of FR 22(I) (a) (1), which read as under :- “F.R. 22. (I) The initial pay of a Government servant who is appointed to a post on a time-scale of pay is regulated as follows:- [(a) (1) Where a Government servant holding a post, other than a tenure post, in a substantive or temporary or officiating capacity is promoted or appointed in a substantive, temporary or officiating capacity, as the case may be, subject to the fulfilment of the eligibility conditions as prescribed in the relevant Recruitment Rules, to another post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching to the post held by him, his initial pay in the time-scale shall be fixed by giving one increment in the level from which the Government servant is promoted and he or she shall be placed at a cell equal to the figure so arrived at in the level of the post to which promoted or appointed and if no such cell is available in the level to which promoted or appointed, he shall be placed at the next higher cell in that level.” 13. A perusal of FR 22(I) (a) (1) clearly reveals that in case a person is appointed to another post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance, then those attached to the post held by him, his initial pay in the time scale shall be fixed by giving one increment in the level from which the Government servant is promoted and he or she shall be placed at a cell equal to the figure arrived at in the level of the post to which he is promoted or appointed, and if no such cell is available in the level to which he is promoted or appointed, he shall be placed at the next higher cell in that level. 14. So far as the nature of duties and responsibilities of the post of Head Constable and TGT (Non-Medical) are concerned, it cannot be said that there is no change in the duties and responsibilities. 14. So far as the nature of duties and responsibilities of the post of Head Constable and TGT (Non-Medical) are concerned, it cannot be said that there is no change in the duties and responsibilities. Since the post of TGT (Non-Medical) is carrying a higher pay scale, it carries duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attached to the post of Head Constable earlier held by the petitioner. 15. The plea taken by the respondents that the case of the petitioner was considered under the provisions of FR 22 (I) (a) (2) cannot be sustained for the reason that the said rule will be applicable only in case the post which is held by the petitioner does not involve assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance. If it is to be construed as it is, then it will negate the very import of the provision contained in FR 22 (I) (a) (1). 16. In the present case, the respondents had earlier fixed the pay of the petitioner, as evident from the perusal of Annexure P-2, at Rs.6200/- on the date of joining and after considering the provisions of FR 22 (I) (a) (1) on 21.06.2007, the pay was fixed at Rs.6400/- by giving one increment. The plea raised by the respondents that if in the case of Sh. Janinder Kumar, he has been granted the benefit as per the provisions of FR 22 (I) (a) (1), then the matter will be inquired into and necessary action will be taken accordingly. 17. Nothing has been placed on record by the respondents to substantiate their submission that any action has been taken by them after filing the reply against Janinder Kumar, which was filed in the year 2011. 18. No doubt, it is settled law that if a person is wrongly granted the benefit, another person cannot claim parity. However, once the provisions of FR 22 (I) (a) (1) clearly envisage that if a person is promoted or appointed in a substantive capacity to another post carrying the duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attached to the post held by him, his initial pay in the time scale shall be fixed by giving one increment, the petitioner cannot be denied the relief. 19. 19. Learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir and others vs. State of Bihar and others, (2009) 3 SCC 475 . The relevant paragraphs of the judgment read as under:- “39. Rule 22(I)(a)(1) provides that when a government servant is promoted or appointed to a higher post and the higher post he is promoted to carries duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching to the post held by him, his initial pay in the time scale of the higher post shall be fixed at the stage next above the notional pay arrived at by increasing his pay in respect of the lower post held by him regularly by an increment at the stage at which such pay has accrued or rupees one hundred only, whichever is more. 40. According to FR 22(I)(a)(2) the benefit of an additional increment, which is available to a government servant under FR 22(1)(a)(1) would not be available to the government servant if the higher post he is promoted or appointed to does not carry duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching to the post held by him.” 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that if the person is appointed to a higher post which carries duties and responsibilities of greater importance, the employee is covered under FR22(I)(a)(1). In the present case, the petitioner having been appointed as TGT(Non-Medical) and this post carried duties and responsibilities of greater importance and further the pay scale is also different as that of the post of Head Constable. Thus, the action on the part of the respondents in denying the benefit of one increment by applying FR 22(I)(a)(2) is unjustified. 21. Learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner has not pressed prayer No. (iii) made in the writ petition, which has been quoted hereinabove. 22. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and Annexure P-5 dated 23.04.2009 is quashed and set-aside. The respondents are directed to fix the pay of the petitioner in terms of FR 22(I) (a) (1) by granting one increment to the petitioner w.e.f. 21.06.2007, when he had joined the respondent-Department. The said exercise be completed within a period of two months. The respondents are directed to fix the pay of the petitioner in terms of FR 22(I) (a) (1) by granting one increment to the petitioner w.e.f. 21.06.2007, when he had joined the respondent-Department. The said exercise be completed within a period of two months. In case the arrears are not paid to the petitioner within two months, the same shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date the amount fell due to the petitioner till the actual payment. 23. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.