( 2026:HHC:30604 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPOA No.2835 of 2019 Decided on: 22.07.2026 Satish Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _______________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Advocate for respondent No.2. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner by way of present petition has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “i) That the order dated 12.10.1999, Annexure P-2, may be ordered to be modified to the extent the petitioner may be held entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 950-1800 with initial start of Rs. 1000/ w.e.f. 3.5.1986 and senior scale w.e.f. 3.5.1989 (after completion of three years of service). ii) That on account of the pay revision from due date, the petitioner may be held entitled to the arrears of pay with all the consequential benefits, with interest at market rate.” 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2026:HHC:30604 ) 2 2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioner was appointed as Petrol Pump Attendant on 03.05.1986.The petitioner was granted the pay scale of Rs.950-1800 with initial start of Rs.1000/-. It has been averred that as per the revision of pay scale, with effect from 01.01.1986, the petitioner was entitled to the pay scale of Rs.950–1800 with initial start of Rs.1000 and senior scale of Rs.1200–2100 in the ratio of 50:50 with effect from 03.05.1989. Prior to the revision of pay scale, the pay scale of Petrol Pump Attendants was at par with the Clerk-cum-Typists, Booking Clerks, Conductors, etc., and the salary for the post was in the pay scale of Rs.400–600. It has also been averred that the petitioner was denied the initial start of pay of Rs.1000 and also the senior scale in the ratio of 50:50 after completion of 3 years of service on 03.05.1989. However, the senior scale was granted to the above-mentioned categories of employees working with respondent No.2-Corporation. Despite making various representations, no action was taken by the respondents. 3. Respondent No.2-Corporation after the approval of the Board of Directors issued an office order dated 12.10.1999 (Annexure P-2), whereby the scales of pay of various posts including the posts of Petrol Pump Attendant was revised. The pay scale of the posts of Petrol Pump Attendants of Rs.950-1800 was re-revised ( 2026:HHC:30604 ) 3 to Rs.950-1800 and Rs.1200–2100 in the ratio of 50:50 w.e.f.01.01.1986 and the revised pay scale of Rs.3120–5160 and Rs. 4020–6200 in the ratio of 50:50 w.e.f. 01.01.1996. However, the arrears of the difference of pay scales were not to be paid to the individual concerned and they were held entitled for all other consequential benefits from the date of approval by the Board of Directors, i.e. 12.07.1999. 4. It has further been averred that the petitioner was not given the senior scale and the initial start of Rs.1000/-, even after passing of the order dated 12.10.1999, and only senior scale was released in his favour w.e.f. 12.07.1999, whereas it should have been paid w.e.f. 03.05.1989. The petitioner made a representation dated 02.11.1999 (Annexure P-3), requesting that he may be paid the pay scale in the ratio of 50:50 as per office order dated 12.10.1999, since he was appointed on 03.05.1986, and the senior scale was to be granted to him w.e.f. 03.05.1989, as was done in the senior category of employees, which were having identical unrevised pay scales. It has also been averred that the petitioner was allowed the senior scale w.e.f. 12.07.1999, whereas the same ought to have been allowed w.e.f. 03.05.1989, whereas the rest of the employees were granted the said senior scale from due date and there is no justification in denying the same to the petitioner. It has ( 2026:HHC:30604 ) 4 further been averred that the petitioner is suffering recurring loss in terms of money and non-grant of the proper pay scale and senior scale in time, has affected his pension. It has also been averred that the action on the part of respondent No.2-Corporation in not paying the pay scale from due dates is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and thus prayed that the order dated 12.10.1999 may be modified, thereby the petitioner may be granted the pay scale of Rs.950–1800 with initial start of Rs.1000/-w.e.f.03.05.1986 and senior scale w.e.f. 03.05.1989 and further on account of pay revision from time to time, he may be held entitled to the arrears of pay. 5. Respondent No. 2-Corporation filed reply to the petition and raised preliminary objections that the petitioner was appointed as Petrol Pump Attendant on 03.05.1986 and pay scale of Rs.950– 1800 with initial start of Rs.1000 was not given to him, whereas the initial start of Rs.1000 was allowed to those categories whose pre- revised scale was Rs.400–600. It has further been averred that the duties and responsibilities of Petrol Pump Attendants are different in nature to other similar situated categories and the pay scale of Rs.950-1800 with initial start of Rs.1000 was not given by the State Government to the category of Petrol Pump Attendants. The pay scale of Rs.4020–6200 was given to the category of Petrol Pump ( 2026:HHC:30604 ) 5 Attendant subject to eligibility criteria for release of pay scale in the ratio of 50:50 vide office order dated 12.10.1999. As per the decision, the arrears of the difference of pay scale were not payable to the individual concerned, and they were held entitled for all other consequential benefits from the date of approval by the Board of Directors, i.e., 12.07.1999.The petitioner has been paid the pay scale vide office order dated 19.07.2004. Since the petitioner had already been fixed at pay scale, above the minimum of senior scale as allowed to him, as such, his pay had not been affected after allowing the scale. 6. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply and controverted the averments made in the reply. It has further been averred that the pay scale of Rs.950–1800 was allowed in the ratio of 50:50, and as such, an employee who had put in 3 years of service as Petrol Pump Attendant, was to be allowed pay scale of Rs.1200–2100, and the same was termed as senior scale of Petrol Pump Attendant. All other categories were allowed the initial start of Rs.1000/- and subsequently allowed the senior scale and the category of Petrol Pump Attendant was left out. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. ( 2026:HHC:30604 ) 6 8. Before adverting to the submissions made by the learned counsel at the Bar, it would be relevant to quote the office order dated 12.10.1999, which reads as under:- “HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT COPORATION SHIMLA-171003 No.HO:9E-865/98-(A) Dated Shimla-3 12th Oct. 1999 OFFICE ORDER Pursuant to the approval of the Board of Directors vide item No.86.04 the pay scale of pay of the following posts are hereby further revised as indicated against each:- Sr.No. Category of Posts Pre-revised scale w.e.f. 1.1.86 Re-revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.86. Date of allowing the re- revised pay scales. Revised pay Scale w.e.f.1.1.96 1. Sr.Store Keeper/ Store Verifier 1500-2700 1800-3200 1.1.1986 5800-9200 2. Drivers 1200-2100 1200-2100 (50%) 1500-2700 (50%) 18.11.93 4020-6200 (50%) 4400-7000(50%) 3. Booking Clerks 950-1800 (50%) 1200-2130 (50%) 950-1800 (50%) with initial start of Rs.1000 01.01.86 3120-5160(50%) 4020-6200 (50%) 4. Petrol Pump Attendent 950-1800 950-1800 (50%) 1200-2100 (50%) 01.01.86 3120-5160 (50%) 4020-6200 (50%) The above scales are released subject to the condition that the arrears of the difference of pay scales shall not be payable but the individual concerned shall be entitled for all other consequential benefits from the date of approval by the Board of Director i.e. 12.07.1999. Sd/- Managing Director Himachal Road Transport Corporation Shimla-171003.” 9. A perusal of the office order reveals that the category of Petrol Pump Attendant, which was in receipt of pre-revised scale of Rs.950-1800 w.e.f.01.01.1986 was granted the re-revised pay scale ( 2026:HHC:30604 ) 7 of Rs. 950-1800 and Rs.1200-2100 in the ratio of 50:50 and thereafter, the pay scale of Rs.3120–5160 and Rs.4020–6200 in the ratio of 50:50 w.e.f.01.01.1996. The office order only depicts that the individuals were not held entitled to the arrears of the difference of these pay scales, but they were held entitled for other consequential benefits from the date of approval by the Board of Directors, i.e., 12.07.1999. It means that the individual was not entitled to the arrears prior to 12.07.1999, but their pay scale was to be revised and thereafter released in the ratio of 50:50 w.e.f. 01.01.1986, and thereafter, the revised pay scale w.e.f.01.01.1996 in the ratio of 50:50 notionally, but on actual basis w.e.f. 12.07.1999. As such, the pay of the petitioner was to be re-fixed in the revised pay scale of Rs. 950-1800 and Rs.1200-2100 in the ratio of 50:50 firstly, taking the pay scale from 01.01.1986 upto 01.01.1996, and thereafter, in the revised pay scale of Rs.3120- 5160 and Rs.4020-6200 in the ratio of 50:50 w.e.f. 01.01.1996, but the arrears were to be paid only w.e.f. 12.07.1999. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that that the petitioner has been granted the benefit of pay scale vide office order dated 19.07.2004, but his pay scale was not re-fixed as per the office order dated 12.10.1999. ( 2026:HHC:30604 ) 8 11. No doubt, the respondent No.2-Corporation while filing the reply has averred that the petitioner has been granted the pay scale as per office order dated 19.07.2004 (Annexure R-III), w.e.f. 12.07.1999, but the said scale was to be worked out w.e.f. 01.01.1986 on the basis of the earlier pay scale granted to him. The petitioner has been granted the scale w.e.f. 12.07.1999 taking the start of Rs.4020–6200, which is illegal, arbitrary and unjust. Once respondent No.2-Corporation had taken a conscious decision to revise the pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1986 as stated above, but on notional basis and on actual basis w.e.f. 12.07.1999 the petitioner was entitled to the actual benefits from 12.07.1999, but his pay has to be re-fixed from the initial date of grant of revised pay scales and granting the pay scale of Rs.4020-6200 w.e.f. 12.07.1999 is contrary to the decision of respondent No.2-Corporation. The petitioner has been paid the pay scale on 19.07.2004, that too, without working out the same in the ratio of 50:50 as per the revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1986. In case the exercise to re-fix the pay of the petitioner is not worked out from the initial date of grant of pay scales as mentioned above, the purpose of issuing the office order dated 12.10.1999 to grant the benefits of revised pay scales to the category of Petrol Pump Attendant has become redundant. ( 2026:HHC:30604 ) 9 12. Respondent No.2-Corporation, while implementing the office order dated 12.10.1999, ought to have undertaken the exercise, firstly, to grant the revised pay scale of Rs.950-1800 and Rs.1200-2100 in the ratio of 50:50 to the category of Petrol Pump Attendant on notional basis till 01.01.1996, and thereafter, the same exercise has to be done to grant the revised pay scale of Rs.3120– 5160 and Rs.4020–6200 in the ratio of 50:50 on notional basis from 01.01.1996 till 12.07.1999 and thereafter, the actual financial benefits shall have to be paid to the petitioner w.e.f. 12.07.1999, instead of taking the revised pay scale of Rs.4020–6200 as on 12.07.1999, which has done while implementing the office order dated 12.10.1999. Since the non-grant of the pay scale strictly in terms of the office order dated 12.10.1999 is affecting the pension of the petitioner, he has recurring cause of action. The petitioner can be denied the arrears from 12.07.1999, but his claim for re- fixing his salary and pension can’t be denied, 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. Since the petitioner has approached the Court in the year 2014, he is entitled to arrears prior to three years from the date of filing petition as per judgment in Tarsem Singh’s case (supra). ( 2026:HHC:30604 ) 10 13. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and respondent No.2-Corporation is directed to implement the office order dated 12.10.1999 and work out the financial benefits to be paid to the petitioner on notional basis till three years prior to the date of filing the present petition and actual benefits, thereafter be paid to him till actual payment. In case the arrears are not paid to the petitioner after implementing the office order dated 12.10.1999 within three months from today, respondent No.2-Corporation shall pay the interest on the arrears at the rate of 6% per annum from today till its actual payment. 14. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) 22nd July, 2026 Judge (naveen)