2026:HHC:9110 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No.575 of 2019 Decided: 24 th March, 2026 ___________________________________________________________________ Roshan Lal Sharma and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents _____________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioners: Mr. Karan Singh Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioners by way of present petition have prayed that they may be granted the pay scale of Rs.5,480- 8,925 from the date of their initial appointment along with arrears and further to grant them 5 advance increments from the date of their initial appointment and also re昀椀x their pay 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 and pay arrears on account thereof. 2. The precise grouse of the petitioners as raised in the petition and canvased by Mr. Karan Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that though the Recruitment and Promotion Rules (hereinafter referred to as “R&P Rules”) framed by the respondents called as the Himachal Pradesh, Education Department, Class-III (School and Inspector Cadre) Services Rules, 1973, provide that Hindi Teachers/Sanskrit Teachers, who possess the Sanskrit Degree/Diploma or a degree of M.A. (Sanskrit), shall get 5 advance increments in time scale, but the petitioners have been denied the same, despite requests being made by them. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed on the posts of Shastri with the respondents-State, though they were earlier working on other posts, prior to taking their services on the post of Shastri. 4. As per Annexure A-12, issued in September 2004 3 by the respondent No. 3, petitioners No.1 to 4 have been shown at Sr. No.415, 428, 516 and 260 respectively and these persons have acquired the quali昀椀cation of Shastri and further their appointments have been shown w.e.f. 20.09.1998, 01.04.1999, 13.07.2001 and 01.04.1994 respectively. Petitioner No.3 has also been shown to have the quali昀椀cation of Ph.D. 5. When the petitioners were not granted 5 advance increments as contained in the R&P Rules and also as per Noti昀椀cation dated 24.04.1986 (Annexure A-13), they made a representation dated 18.07.2001 (Annexure A-14). The petitioners have also placed on record the Noti昀椀cation dated 31.08.1982 (Annexure A-15), wherein the examination of Shastri has been equated with B.A. and Acharya with M.A. 6. The petitioners have placed on record their educational quali昀椀cations, wherein they have shown that they have acquired their Masters Degree, except petitioner No.4. 4 As per Annexure A-2, petitioner No.1 has done his Acharya, which is equivalent to Masters Degree in the year 1982. Similarly, other petitioners have also done their Masters Degree, which fact has not been disputed by the respondents, except petitioner No.4. 7. As per Noti昀椀cation dated 24.04.1986 (Annexure A- 13), amendment in the Himachal Pradesh, Education Department, Class-III (School and Inspector Cadre) Services Rules, 1973, was carried out and entries under Col. No. 8, below the heading ‘b’ for Sanskrit teachers against serial No. 19(b) were substituted. 8. As far as the quali昀椀cation for appointment to the post of Shastri and further grant of 5 advance increments is concerned, that was not substituted to be granted to the Hindi Teachers, Sanskrit Teachers and Urdu Teachers. It was only the quali昀椀cation, which was changed with respect to Sanskrit Teachers. 5 9. The petitioners were appointed against the posts of Shastri and thus were entitled to 5 advance increments in time scale. 10. The respondents 昀椀led reply to the petition and averred that the petitioners were entitled for annual increments as well as pro昀椀ciency step up after completion of 8/18 years’ service in the same cadre, however, there is no provision to grant 昀椀ve advance increments to the categories of Shastri, who possess the higher degree of education. The petitioners have been granted the pay scales as per the Noti昀椀cation issued by the Government from time to time while revising the pay scale. The petitioners were regularized in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2700 and in the year 1998, the process was initiated to 昀椀ll up the post of Shastri in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8100 and they have been o昀昀ered the appointments as Shastris. The essential quali昀椀cation for the post of Shastri is Diploma in Shastri from the recognized 6 University/Institution and mere showing the higher quali昀椀cation in the seniority list, does not mean that they have to be given any bene昀椀t contrary to the Rules. 11. While replying to para 6(vi) of the petition, the respondents have not denied the receipt of the representation Annexure A-14. Further, while replying ground (C), wherein the petitioners had claimed that they are entitled to 5 advance increments as per the R& P Rules, it has been averred that the petitioners if want to get higher pay scale, they are at liberty to compete before the appropriate commission for higher post, however, they are not entitled to higher pay scale and 昀椀ve advance increments contrary to the provisions of R&P Rules. 12. Though the petitioners have placed on record the Noti昀椀cation dated 31.08.1982, wherein the provision contained to provide 5 advance increments had been speci昀椀cally mentioned, but the respondents have not given 7 any speci昀椀c reply, except that there is no provision to grant 昀椀ve advance increments. 13. The petitioners 昀椀led rejoinder to the reply and reiterated their stand as raised in the petition. 14. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 15. It is not in dispute that in the Himachal Pradesh, Education Department, Class-III (School and Inspector Cadre) Services Rules, 1973, there is a provision to a Hindi Teacher to get 5 advance increments in time scale. 16. In the present case, as per the own seniority list circulated by the respondents, it has been shown that the petitioners are possessing the quali昀椀cation of Shastri. Not only this, even as per the documents placed on record, all the petitioners are possessing the quali昀椀cation of Masters Degree, except petitioner No.4, which fact has not been disputed by the respondents. 8 17. Once the R&P Rules speci昀椀cally provide that the employee who possess the Sanskrit Degree/Diploma or Degree of M.A. (Sanskrit), shall get 5 advance increments, there is no justi昀椀cation to deny the said relief to the petitioners. 18. It is a settled law that the employees are governed by the R&P Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and once the Rules speci昀椀cally provide to grant 5 advance increments to an employee who possess degree of Shastri, there is no justi昀椀cation to deny the said reliefs to the petitioners, especially when they possess the degree of Shastri and further Masters Degree. The Rules only provide that an employee who possess the Degree of Shastri/Diploma is entitled to 5 advance increments, petitioner No.4 who only possess the Degree of Shastri is also entitled for the same relief. 19. Learned Additional Advocate General has tried to 9 justify the action of the State to deny the bene昀椀t on the plea that once the petitioners have been appointed on a particular scale, they are not entitled to any bene昀椀t more than that, but the said plea cannot be accepted for the reason that once the R&P Rules speci昀椀cally provide to grant a particular bene昀椀t to its employee, the respondent-State being a model employer is under obligation to extend the said bene昀椀ts to its employees. 20. Since the respondents in their reply have not speci昀椀cally disputed the fact of issuance of Noti昀椀cation dated 24.04.1986 (Annexure A-13) as well as the R&P Rules, wherein it is clearly stipulated that the persons possessing the requisite quali昀椀cations of the Sanskrit Degree are entitled to get 5 advance increments, thus, simply denying the grant of said bene昀椀ts cannot justify the action on the part of the respondents. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioners have though 10 prayed for grant of pay scale of Rs.5,480-8925, but the said relief cannot be granted to the petitioners, especially when the petitioners are being paid the pay scale as noti昀椀ed by the State Government of Rs.5000-8100. However, it is made clear that since the petitioners have been denied of 昀椀ve advance increments, they are held entitled to the same from the due date on notional basis and from actual basis three years prior to 昀椀ling the present petition. 22. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant 5 advance increments to the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment, on notional basis and on actual basis from 3 years prior to 昀椀ling the present petition. In case, the respondents do not pay the arrears on account of grant of 5 advance increments to the petitioners within a period of three months from today, the same shall carry interest @6% per annum from due date till its realization. 11 23. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 24 th March, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge