IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.745 of 2026 Date of Decision: 08.01.2026 _______________________________________________________ Sh. Shashi Bhushan …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Anshul Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has approached this Court, praying therein for following main reliefs:- “i. That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued quashing and setting aside the impugned Office Order dated 01.01.2026 (Annexure P-4), whereby the case of the Petitioner has been rejected on the ground that they have been extended the benefit of Higher-Grade Pay. ii. That the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other directions may kindly be issued, to the respondents to grant the 3rd ACP benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme on the completion of 14 years of regular service from due date i.e. 16.12.2012 with all consequential benefits in terms of the instructions dated 09.08.2012, 07.07.2014 & 09.09.2014 in view of the law laid down in CWPOA 5536 of 2020 alongwith other connected matters titled as Sanjay Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. iii. That Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions may be issued to directing the Respondents to also pay the consequential arrears alongwith interest @9% per annum.” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that in the year 1998, petitioner was initially appointed as TGT (Non-Medical), on regular basis. Upon completion of eight years of regular service, the petitioner was granted the benefit of 1st ACPs under the old ACPs Scheme (8-16-24-32). In the year 2008, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Lecturer (Physics), vide office order dated 22.08.2008. Government introduced a new ACP Secheme (4/9/14), vide communication dated 09.08.2012 which came into force w.e.f. 27.08.2009 on notional basis and on actual basis w.e.f. 09.08.2012. The petitioner opted for new Assured Career Progression Scheme (4/9/14) for getting the benefit on the completion of 4, 9 and 14 years in the Cadre of Lecturer. In terms of the assured Career Progression Scheme three Financial Upgradation are required to be given to an employee in the entire service carrier. Petitioner was promoted from TGT to Lecturer which was considered as second Financial Upgradation. Now, the dispute is with regard to Third Financial Upgradation in terms of the ACP Scheme which came to be introduced vide communication dated 09.08.2012. Third Financial Upgradation has been denied to the petitioner on the pretext that Grade Pay of petitioner has been revised w.e.f. 01.10.2012 from Rs.4400/- to Rs.5400/-. -3- 3. Respondents vide impugned order dated 01.01.2026 (Annexure P-4) have submitted that Government of Himachal Pradesh vide letter of Finance (Pay Revision) Department No. Fin(PR)B(7)-59/2010 dated 07.07.2014 (Annexure P4) has clarified vide letter dated Fin(PR)B(7)-59/2010 dated 09.09.2014 that the incumbents who have already availed three Financial Upgradation other than annual increments and pay revision, in their entire service, they are not entitled for ACP Scheme benefit under Scheme 4-9-14. In the nutshell, it has been claimed by the respondents that since, the petitioner has already availed the benefit of three Financial Upgradations under Old ACPs and New ACPs dated 09.08.2012, therefore, he is not entitled for any other benefit under New ACPs i.e. 4-9-14. As per New ACP Scheme introduced by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Finance (Pay Revision), Department and instructions dated 09.08.2012, it stands clarified under rule 3(b-g) that employees who have availed the benefit in existing scheme will be adjusted accordingly. 4. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Anshul Jairath, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that the revision of Pay under General Pay Revision on the recommendation of Pay Commission cannot be considered to be Financial Upgradation in -4- terms of the judgment dated 01.11.2023, passed by the Division Bench of this Court, in CWPOA No.5536 of 2020, titled Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. alongwith connected petitions. 5. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the issue as to whether the Financial Upgradation on account of pay revision/revision of Grade Pay can be a ground to deny benefit of Financial Upgradation under the ACP Scheme after completion of 4- 9-14, stands decided by Division Bench of this Court Sanjay Kumar (supra), wherein, Division Bench of this Court has categorically held that annual increment or general pay revision cannot be considered as Financial Upgradation for the purpose of benefit, if any, under the ACP Scheme. The relevant extract of the said judgment is being reproduced herein below:- “10. Careful perusal of communication dated 7th July 2014 whereby old ACP scheme came to be replaced by new ACPS, clearly reveals that annul increment or general pay revision shall not be considered as financial upgradation for the purpose of benefit, if any, under ACPS. If it is so, there appears to be merit in the claim of the petitioners that they are entitled to the benefit of third financial upgradation after their having completed 14 years of service. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of para-5 of the afore letter, which reads as under:- “Moreover, the overriding objective on an assured career progression scheme is to ensure at least three financial up- gradations/ enhancements/ promotions to a regular employee in his entire service career. Therefore, in partial modification of earlier orders on ACP schemes it is directed that, once an employee has already got three enhancements / financial upgradations i.e. grant of progression under the new or old ACPS or promotion or any -5- other financial enhancement except the annual increment or the general pay revision based on the pay commission, in fourteen years or more his/her entire service., thereafter, he will not be entitled for placement in next 8 higher grade pay in the ACPS Scheme introduced vide FD’s instructions dated 9th August 2012. However, it is clarified that after availing three enhancements / upgradation/ promotion, an employee will be eligible to take the benefit of normal promotions available in his service career.” 11. Careful perusal of aforesaid instructions clearly reveals that an employee is granted three enhancements/upgradations/promotion, he/she shall not be eligible for grant of further benefit, if any, under ACPS, but in the case at hand, petitioners after being appointed as JBT though were given two benefits of financial upgradation under ACPS, first benefit was granted under old ACPS after their having completed eight years service, whereas second benefit was granted in their favour after their having completed nine years service under new ACPS and petitioners have already opted, is being denied on the ground that vide order dated 26.02.2013 grade pay of the petitioners has been enhanced w.e.f. 1.10.2012. However, as observed hereinabove, financial upgradation, if any, on account of pay revision/revision of grade pay cannot be a ground to deny benefit of financial upgradations under ACPS, which become due after completion of four, nine and fourteen years as per new ACPS. Though, it has been vehemently argued on behalf of the respondents/State that grade pay of the petitioners was enhanced, as a result of which, their pay was enhanced, but as has been taken note above, financial enhancement on account of annual increment or general pay revision, based on pay commission, is not to be considered while considering the case of an employee for grant of benefit of ACPS. Since, in the case at hand pay of the petitioners came to be enhanced on account of grant of grade pay, 9 benefit of financial upgradation in terms of provision contained under ACPS cannot be denied.” 6. Since, it is apparent from the impugned order dated 01.01.2026 (Annexure P-4) passed by the respondents that benefits, as has been asked by the petitioner, has been denied on the ground that the Grade Pay of petitioner has been revised w.e.f. 01.10.2012 from Rs.4400/- to Rs.5400/-, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel representing the petitioner, that the -6- revision of Grade Pay w.e.f. 01.10.2012 cannot be treated to be a Financial Upgradation for the purpose of benefit, if any, under the ACP Scheme. 7. Consequently, in view of above, the present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 01.01.2026 (Annexure P-4) is quashed. The petitioner is held entitled to the third enhancement under the ACP Scheme after completion of 14 years of service. The needful by the competent authority be done within four weeks from today. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge January 08, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)