IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3212 of 2026 Decided on: 19th March, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lal Chand Shastri …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.2. Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate, for respondents No.3 and 4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner seeks direction to the respondents, more particularly respondents No.3 & 4, to give him additional consultation fee alongwith interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. October, 2020 on the basis of Circulars No.702/2020, dated 24.04.2020 and 719/2020, dated 07.07.2020, issued by respondents No.3 and 4. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 3. Respondents No.3 and 4 engaged the petitioner as Associate Consultant under an appointment order issued to him on 14.10.2020. The said appointment order delineated terms & conditions of petitioner’s appointment. The condition relevant for the purpose of issue raised in this petition pertaining to emoluments payable to the petitioner is as under:- “5) Fee: During the tenure as Associate Consultant, you will be paid professional fee of Rs.5000/- per day subject to ceiling of Rs.75,000/- per month (i.e. 15 days in a month). SJVN shall bear all taxes (except TDS), duties and taxes including Service Tax as per applicable laws in force in India. TDS shall be deducted by SJVN from each payment due to Associate Consultant as per act.” In terms of above condition, petitioner was to be paid a specific professional fee of Rs.5000/- per day in view of his having been appointed as Associate Consultant with ceiling of Rs.75,000/- per month. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been paid professional fee in terms of the above condition. Petitioner’s grievance is that he was required to be paid additional fee as envisaged in respondents’ Corporate Circulars No.702/2020, dated 24.04.2020 and 719/2020, dated 07.07.2020, wherein some additional professional fee for ‘Consultants/Advisors’ 3 had been provided. The prayer has been made on the strength of Condition No.12 of petitioner’s appointment order dated 14.10.2020, which reads as under:- “12) General Conditions: a) The terms and conditions which have not been mentioned herewith shall be governed under the Policy for Engagement of Consultants and Advisors. b) Inadvertent omission or commission or mistakes, if any, appearing in this letter of award is liable to be rectified at any time before or after joining to bring the terms and conditions of offer in accordance with the extant policy/rules and regulations of the Company that may be in force from time to time. c) In case the above terms and conditions as Associate Consultant are acceptable, please convey your acceptance within ten days of issuance of this award letter.” 4. Respondents No.3 and 4 had justifiably rejected petitioner’s representation, which was directed to be decided in terms of Lal Chand Shastri Versus Union of India & Ors.2, with the reasoning that Condition No.12 would be applicable only in case appointment letter is silent on any term. Insofar as professional fee payable to the petitioner is concerned, there was no ambiguity in the appointment order issued to the petitioner on 14.10.2020. Petitioner was to be paid professional fee of Rs.5000/- per day subject to ceiling of Rs.75,000/- per month. There was 2 CWP No.9525 of 2025, decided alongwith connected matters on 27.08.2025 4 no necessity for the respondents to pay to the petitioner additional consultation fee in terms of aforesaid Corporate Circulars as prayed for by him, as the said circulars were not applicable to petitioner’s case. Evidently, the circulars were issued on 24.04.2020 and 07.07.2020, whereas petitioner was offered appointment on 14.10.2020 on specific terms & conditions. The petitioner had accepted the terms & conditions of the appointment letter and thereafter served with the respondents as Associate Consultant. His claim now for additional consultation fee on the basis of Corporate circulars, as referred to above, therefore, is not tenable. 5. In view of above, I find no merit in the instant writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua March 19, 2026 Judge Mukesh