2026:HHC:12256 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No.4080 of 2019 Decided on: 18 th April, 2026 __________________________________________________________________ Paras Ram ...Petitioner Versus HPSEBL ...Respondent __________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Prem P. Chauhan, Ms. Shikha Rajta and Ms. Tara Devi, Advocates. For the respondent: Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner by way of present writ petition, has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- (a) to issue a writ of certiorari or direction in nature thereof, quashing the impugned order dated 18.01.2008 (Annexure P-9), dated 01.08.2008 (Annexure P-10) & dated 28/05/2012 (Annexure P-18) of the writ petition, as unconstitutional and illegal and contrary to the law. b) to issue a writ of mandamus, appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof, directing the respondent to pay the arrears of illegally refixed pay and allowances with all the consequential benefits and 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 interest thereon @18% pa. 2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that the respondent-Board had issued Office Order No.12 dated 31.01.1991 (Annexure P-1), whereby a time bound benefit of promotional scales was introduced. As per this Scheme, an employee who has not received the benefit of 9/16 years time bound promotional scale has not earned three regular promotions in his career and has not earned third promotion in his regular service between 16th and 23rd years of service, was entitled to Advance Promotional Increments (two increments) on completion of 23 years of regular service. 3. The petitioner who had completed 23 years service and covered under the ibid scheme was granted the benefit of two Advance Promotional Increments on 25.08.1993, without exercising the option by him and his pay was fixed w.e.f. 01.01.1994. The respondent-Board had issued the letter dated 23.05.1995, wherein it was decided that in cases where the pay of an employees happen to be changed 3 with retrospective effect for any reason as a result of change/amendment of Board’s decision, they shall be entitled to exercise the option within three months. Thereafter, another letter was issued on 12.10.1995 to exercise the option within three months. However, the petitioner had exercised the option on 03.09.1996. As per the ibid office order, the scheme had to take effect from 01.01.1986. However, the payment of arrears would be spread over the next three years. During vetting of pay by the Accounts Officer (Pay Fix.), it was noticed that the petitioner had not exercised the option within the stipulated period and instead exercised it on 03.09.1996 for the grant of benefit of Annual Promotional Increment on completion of 23 years of service. As such, the same cannot be considered until special relaxation to exercise the option at a belated stage is granted by the Secretary of the respondent-Board as per letter dated 18.01.2008(Annexure P-9). Thereafter, vide office order dated 4 01.08.2008 (Annexure P-10), his pay was re-fixed. 4. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the said order, had made representations to the respondent-Board, which were not decided, and thus, the petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No. 7810 of 2010-I, titled, Paras Ram vs. HPSEB Ltd., which was disposed of on 21.03.2012 with a direction to the respondent-Board to decide the representations made by the petitioner with an open mind, untrammeled and uninfluenced by the orders already passed, and further to pass appropriate orders after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. 5. In sequel to the directions issued by this Court, the respondent-Board vide order dated 28.05.2012 (Annexure P-18), rejected the representations, holding that the petitioner had not exercised the option within a period of 5 three months from the date of office order dated 12.10.1995 and exercised option on 03.09.1996 to grant the Advance Promotional Increments on completion of 23 years of service on 25.08.1993 to fix his pay under saving clause of FR-22(1)(a) (i) w.e.f. 01.01.1994. Since the provision is statutory in nature and the option exercised was time barred, the claim of the petitioner is devoid of merit and beyond the scope of the rules/instructions issued in this regard from time to time. The respondent-Board has taken similar decision in other cases where the officials had given their option beyond the prescribed period of 3 months. 6. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order of rejection, has approached this Court by way of instant petition, averring therein that the action on the part of the respondent-Board to re-fix his salary after a long lapse of time of about 12 years, without affording an opportunity of being heard to him, is illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, 6 discriminatory and against the well-established principles of natural justice. Further the respondent-Board had taken a very hyper-technical view that the option had not been exercised within the time schedule at such a belated stage, more so when the options were allowed even thereafter to the remaining employees. The rejection of the representation taking into account irrelevant material is wrong and thus be quashed. 7. The respondent-Board filed reply to the petition and supported its decision. 8. It has been averred in the reply that so far grant of Advance Promotional Increments on completion of 23 years of service of the petitioner as on 24.08.1993, is concerned, the benefit of Advance Promotional Increments was allowed to him by the competent authority vide office order dated 21.10.1993. It has further been averred that the instructions regarding grant of Advance Promotional 7 Increments were modified vide Office Order No.123 dated 12.10.1995 and it was ordered that the benefits of Advance Promotional Increments will be granted in the existing scale of employee concerned and such increments will be granted in the same manner as are granted on promotion in higher grade and such officials will not be entitled for the benefit on their next regular promotion. The respondent-Board had introduced the scheme to its employees to exercise the option for fixation of pay on promotion or otherwise (revision of pay scale etc.) within a period of three months and since the petitioner did not exercise the option within three months, the withdrawal of the benefit is justified. It has also been averred that the petitioner has preferred the claim in the year 2010 i.e. after a period of about 13-14 years, which is highly belated and suffers from delay and laches. Since the provision was statutory in nature, the option exercised by the petitioner was time-barred as he had exercised the same 8 after 9 months. In case, the person keeps silent and does not agitate his rights, then his remedy is lost. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 10. It is not in dispute that the respondent-Board had issued the office order dated 31.01.1991, whereby the benefit of Advance Promotional Increments (two increments) on completion of 23 years of service was to be given to its employees who had not earned three regular promotions in their career. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was granted the said benefit of two increments on 25.08.1993, when he had completed 23 years of service with the respondent-Board, and his pay was fixed under the provisions of F.R.22(c) (now F.R.22(1)(a)(i) w.e.f. 01.01.1994) without exercising any option by him. It is also admitted by the respondent-Board that though the petitioner, in pursuance of the communication dated 23.05.1995 and 9 thereafter letter dated 12.10.1995, had exercised the option after three months on 03.09.1996 and despite that, the respondent-Board had not withdrawn two increments given to him under the scheme and it is only after the vetting of his pay, an objection was raised and an office order dated 18.01.2008 was passed, wherein it was mentioned that either relaxation be obtained or the pay be re-fixed, since the petitioner had not exercised the option within three months. 11. No doubt, the petitioner had not exercised the option within the stipulated period, but at the same time, firstly, the respondent-Board without exercising of option by the petitioner had granted him the benefit on 25.08.1993 after completion of 23 years service and thereafter his pay was fixed w.e.f. 01.01.1994. Thereafter, though the period of three months was stipulated to give option by the officials as per communication dated 23.05.1995, but the option given by the petitioner on 03.09.1996 was accepted, meaning thereby 10 the period of exercising the option was condoned by the respondent-Board. It was only after the audit objection/while vetting the pay of the petitioner, an objection was raised as is evident from a perusal of order dated 18.01.2008 (Annexure P-9) and thereafter, an office order dated 01.08.2008(Annexure P-10) was passed to re-fix the pay of the petitioner. If the order dated 18.01.2008 is perused, it was clearly mentioned by the Accounts Officer of the respondent- Board that either the relaxation be obtained or the pay be re- fixed correctly. Since there was no fault on the part of the petitioner when his pay was re-fixed without exercising option by him on 28.10.1993 after issuing the office order dated 31.01.1991 granting him two increments after competition of 23 years’ service w.e.f. 24.08.1993, the appropriate course for the respondent-Board was to grant special relaxation in the case of the petitioner, once he was not at fault. Had the petitioner not been granted the benefit 11 of the office order dated 31.01.1991 without exercising option by him, the respondent-Board could have drawn the benefit that since the petitioner did not exercise the option within the stipulated period, he cannot be allowed to exercise the same at this belated stage. Not only this, even when the petitioner exercised the option after expiry of three months as per the letter dated 12.10.1995 on 03.09.1996, the respondent-Board did not withdraw the benefits earlier granted to him. Thus, the order of fixing his pay after withdrawal of two increments granted to him vide office order dated 28.10.1993 w.e.f. 25.08.1993 vide order dated 01.08.2008 (Annexure P-10) i.e. after about fifteen years, is totally unjustified. 12. The plea taken by the respondent-Board in the reply that the petitioner had raked up the claim in the year 2010 i.e. after a period of about 13 to 14 years, which is highly belated and suffers from delay and laches, is also without any basis for the simple reason that the petitioner was granted 12 the benefit of office order dated 31.01.1991 vide office order dated 28.10.1993 w.e.f. 25.08.1993 after competition of 23 years’ service on 24.08.1993 and for the first time, it was observed by the Accounts Officer (P/Fix) of the respondent- Board on 18.01.2008 that the petitioner had exercised the option on 03.09.1996 to grant the benefit of Annual Promotional Increments, which is not within the stipulated period and cannot be considered until special relaxation to exercise the option at belated stage is granted by the Secretary of the respondent-Board. Thereafter, the pay of the petitioner was re-fixed vide office order dated 01.08.2008 and against this order he had made the representations and when no action was taken, he had approached this Court by way of writ petition in the year 2010, which was disposed of on 21.03.2012. Thus, the plea raised by the respondent-Board that the petitioner had raked up the claim after 13-14 years, is illogical, unjustified and thus rejected. 13 13. The plea regarding the factum that the petitioner though remained silent and did not agitate his right is concerned, the same is also rejected, for the reason that the petitioner, immediately after coming to know about re-fixing his pay had made the representations to the respondent- Board, and when the same were not decided, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of the petition in the year 2010. The respondent-Board, after the directions given by this Court to decide the representations, took a hyper-technical view that since the petitioner did not exercise the option within the stipulated period, and the option was time-barred, is totally unjustified, especially when the respondent-Board had extended the benefit to the petitioner without exercising option by him, and thereafter, when the option was exercised by him as per the communications dated 23.05.1995 and 12.10.1995 on 03.09.1996, the same was accepted, since the benefits already granted were not withdrawn and he was 14 allowed to continue to get the benefit of the office order dated 31.01.1991. 14. It has not come on record that the petitioner was made aware of the communications dated 23.05.1995 and 12.10.1995 to exercise the option within three months. The respondent-Board has not disputed that the petitioner was granted the benefit of the office order dated 31.01.1991 without exercising option by him and furthermore, the time period was not prescribed in the said order. Further, once the option given by the petitioner on 03.09.1996 was not rejected and his pay was not re-fixed withdrawing the benefits of two increments given to him vide office order dated 28.10.1993, the impugned order dated 01.08.2008 passed after about fifteen years is totally unjust, especially when the Accounts Officer of the respondent-Board had also suggested to seek relaxation by the Secretary of the respondent-Board. The proper course which could have been adopted by the 15 respondent-Board was to give special relaxation in favour of the petitioner, especially when initially he was granted the benefit without exercising the option, and thereafter, when he had given the option which was not rejected and the benefits given to him were not altered by the respondent- Board. Thus, the impugned order passed by the respondent- Board to re-fix the pay of the petitioner withdrawing the benefits of two increments, is totally illegal, arbitrary, unjust and discriminatory. 15. It is not the case of the respondent-Board that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit as per the office order dated 31.01.1991. The only reason to reject the claim was that the petitioner did not exercise the option within time, though in the office order dated 31.01.1991, no period of giving the option was mentioned and further, the petitioner was granted the benefit without exercising the option by him and even after exercising the option after the stipulated period, 16 the benefits were not withdrawn as stated above. 16. Resultantly, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 18.01.2008 (Annexure P-9), 01.08.2008 (Annexure P-10) and 28.05.2012 (Annexure P-18) are quashed and set aside and the respondent-Board is directed to pay the arrears on the basis of the pay earlier fixed by the respondent-Board prior to issuance of office order dated 01.08.2008. In case, the benefits are not released in favour of the petitioner within three months from today, the same shall carry interest @6% per annum from today, till its payment. 17. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 18 th April, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge