IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Review Petition No.45 of 2026 Decided on: 18th May, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chaman …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajender Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner seeks review of Chaman Versus State of H.P. & Ors.2. In terms of the said decision, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as under:- “5. In view of above, the respondents have justifiably issued the impugned order refixing and bringing down petitioner’s pay at par with that of his immediate senior i.e. respondent No.4. However, having held so, the recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner on account of previous incorrect fixation of his pay cannot be countenanced. The excess payment was 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes 2 CWP No.3646/2024, decided on 14.10.2025 2 made to the petitioner not on account of any fault on his part, but due to an error committed by the respondents re-fixing petitioner’s pay incorrectly by acting upon incorrect option furnished by him at the relevant time, and thereby releasing higher pay to the petitioner than his immediate senior respondent No.4. Accordingly, respondents’ action in issuing impugned office order dated 16.02.2025 (Annexure P-14) is affirmed to the extent it brings down & fixes petitioner’s pay at par with that of immediate senior i.e. respondent No.4, however, remaining part of Annexure P-14 ordering recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner due to wrong fixation of his pay is quashed and set aside.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 3. While dismissing Chaman2, office letter/ instructions dated 10.02.2022 were kept in view, para 3 whereof stipulated that ‘a government employee would have the option to switch over to the revised pay structure from the date of promotion’. Petitioner had exercised option for coming over to the revised pay scale from the date of his placement as Junior Assistant w.e.f. 20.10.2021. Holding the same to be the date of his placement & not promotion; finding that respondent No.4 therein had exercised option under the same office instructions after completion of two years of regular service as Clerk and the fact that Clerk is placed as Junior Assistant & not promoted as such, it was held that error having come to the notice of the competent authority, was justly rectified by the respondents in 3 re-fixing and bringing down petitioner’s pay at par with that of his immediate senior, i.e. respondent No.4. 4. Petitioner has filed this review petition primarily replying upon office letters/clarifications dated 31.03.2022 and 19.05.2022 (Annexure P-2). In terms of the clarifications, ‘placement on higher scale implies promotion for the purpose of office instructions dated 10.02.2022’. Learned Additional Advocate General has also placed on record office instructions dated 22.04.2026 from the Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Himachal Pradesh, inter alia, placing on record an office letter dated 16.04.2026, conveying that the matter was examined in consultation with the Finance Department, who rendered following advice:- “Examined in the Finance (PR) Department. It is observed that the proposal of the Department is regarding change of option of the Seniors from the date of placement in order to avoid litigation, which is against the spirit of F.D instructions dated 10.02.2022 regarding 15% enhancement instructions. The matter is required to be examined in view of the directions of the Hon’ble Court to allow the benefit of pay fixation from the date of option as Junior Assistant and re-fix the pay accordingly without considering the para 4 (i)(ii)(a) of the instructions dated 10.02.2022. The placements in higher scale also implies promotion for the purpose of these instructions, so it is apparent that the word promoted/promotion used in para-4 of these instructions dated 10.02.2022 also includes the word placement as in this case. In both cases either on promotion or placement (which are same for the purpose of these instructions) the pay of the junior needs to be fixed not more than the Senior employee but at par 4 instead, in order to avoid anomaly. The spirit of para-4 especially the conditions (II) (a) & (b) of these instructions is that in any case the pay of junior fixed under these instructions shall not be more than his senior as has been there in the instant case. Whereas para 4(ii) (b) debars senior employee from stepping up in terms of these instructions. Therefore, the Department needs to defend the case strongly by getting the factual position before the Hon’ble Court.” In view of the office instructions/clarifications now placed on record that word ‘promotion’ used in para 4 of office instructions dated 10.02.2022 also includes the word ‘placement’ and the fact that the aforesaid office instructions/clarifications were not brought to the notice of the Court by either party at the time of decision in Chaman2 and the aforesaid office instructions have a bearing on the claim of the petitioner, this review petition has to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. 5. Consequently, the judgment dated 14.10.2025 rendered in CWP No.3646/2024 shall stand recalled. The writ petition is ordered to be restored to its original number. The review petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 18, 2026 Judge Mukesh