1 2026:HHC:7374 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMP(M) 152 of 2026 a/w LPA No. 136 of 2026 Date of decision: 16.03.2026 ________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh ..Appellant Versus Gopal Singh Verma …Respondent ________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________________ For the Appellant: Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) CMP(M) No. 152 of 2026 Keeping in view the averments made in the application duly supported by an affidavit, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay. Therefore, the delay of 143 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 LPA No. 136 of 2026 2. The present appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, passed in CWPOA No. 1667 of 2019, titled as Gopal Singh Verma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, dated 30.05.2025, whereby the writ petition was allowed and communication dated 05.03.2013 (Annexure P-8) was quashed. The petitioner was held entitled to Secretariat Pay w.e.f 01.12.2011 as per Notification dated 23.04.2012 (Annexure-P-3) and the arrears were directed to be paid to him within eight weeks from the date of the judgment, failing which the respondents/appellants herein, were held liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 3. The reasoning given by the learned Single Judge was on the basis of the Notification dated 23.04.2012, which itself provided for grant of Secretariat Pay to certain categories of employees as detailed therein. The Secretariat Pay at the rate of 600/- per month was made payable to the Post of Law 3 Officer, which was further enhanced to Rs.1200/- per month on 27.09.2012. 4. It was noticed that the petitioner was working in H.P. Secretariat from 2005 till 2023 and, thus he had rendered substantial part of his service in the H.P. Secretariat and had finally retired therefrom. 5. Learned Counsel for the State submits that the deputation of the petitioner/respondent herein, was on departmental level and, therefore, the benefits of the aforesaid Notification would not flow. 6. A perusal of the letter dated 09.06.2005 (Annexure P-1), addressed to the Joint Director (Admn.), Directorate of Education, Himachal Pradesh by the Deputy Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, would go on to show that the services of the writ petitioner were taken in Education D-Section of the H.P. Secretariat in pubic interest till further orders, on account of large number of Court cases pertaining to Primary and Secondary Education and as the said Officer was working in the PA Cell of the Directorate. The said communication reads as under:- 4 “Subject: Regarding deputation of Sh. Gopal Verma, Legal Assistant, presently working in PA Cell, Dte. Of Education ,to Education D Section, HP Sectt., Shimia.” Sir, I am directed to state that it has been brought to the notice of this office that the services of the above named official, who was promoted as Legal Assistant a few years back, are not being utilised in the Legal Coll of the Directorate of Education and rather he has been made to sit in the PA Cell of the Directorate which is not in consonance with the post the said official hold. In view of this it has, therefore, been decided that the services of the said official and his legal background be utilised in the Education D Section, where large number of Court cases pertaining to Primary and Secondary Education are being dealt. You are, therefore, requested that Mr. Gopal Verma, should be deputed temporarily to the Education D Section of the HP Secretariat in public interest till further orders. This has the approval of Principal Secretary (Education) Yours faithfully Deputy Secretary (Edu.) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh.” 7. In these circumstances, once the State itself had requisitioned the services of the writ petitioner on the establishment of the Secretariat, we are of the considered opinion that the benefit of Secretariat pay, as directed, would not suffer from any infirmity. 8. Apart from para-2 of the aforesaid Notification, which has also been referred to by the learned Single Judge, paragraph-3 thereof, would also make it crystal clear that Secretariat Pay would be 5 admissible to the categories of employees mentioned in Annexure-A, on their being posted in Himachal Pradesh Secretariat or equivalent offices from other departments or cadres not belonging to the Secretariat services and would be drawn by them only during the period of their posting in Himachal Pradesh Secretariat or equivalent offices. The same was also to be treated as basic pay for calculation of various allowances but not to be treated for purpose of pensionary benefits in case of retirement from the Secretariat. The said clause reads as under. “3. The Governor. Himachal Pradesh is further pleased to order that Secretariat Pay will also be admissible to the categories of employees mentioned in Annexure-"A" as referred to above on their being posted in Himachal Pradesh. Secretariat or equivalent offices from other departments or cadres not belonging to the Secretariat Services and will be drawn by them only during the period of their posting in Himachal Pradesh Secretariat or equivalent offices and the Secretariat Pay drawn by them will be treated as part of basic pay for calculation of various types of allowances. However, in their cases, Secretariat Pay will NOT be treated as pay for the purpose of calculation of pensionary benefits even if they retire from government 6 service at any time during the period of their posting in the Himachal Pradesh Secretariat or equivalent offices.” 9. The posts of Law Officer and Senior Law Officer also finds mention in Annexure-A appended to the aforesaid Notification. Once the writ petitioner as such was called for by the State itself and the Notification itself provides for the said benefit, it does not lie in their mouth that the writ petitioner was not entitled to the Secretariat pay. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the well reasoned order of the learned Single Judge. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed alongwith pending application(s), if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice. March 16, 2026 (Bipin C. Negi) (hemlata) Judge.