2026:HHC:19023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No.3564 of 2019 Decided on: 20 th May, 2026 __________________________________________________________________ Anil Raj (deceased) through his LRs ...Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents ___________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioners: Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amit Kumar Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 4. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) By way of present petition, the original petitioner had prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “(a) pass an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the petitioner be deemed promoted w.e.f. 1995 to the post of welder with consequential benefit and back pay. (b) pass an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the petitioner is allowed revised pay scale of Rs.950-1800 with 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 initial start of Rs.1000/- w.e.f. 1/1/1986 instead w.e.f. 26/12/1994 as has been notified by the respondent and in the alternative if the petitioner is only found to entitled to receive the benefit w.e.f. 26/12/1994 then same be ordered to be released to the petitioner. (c) Pass an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that petitioner is entitled to time scale benefit for being posted against the same post of Workshop Helper from 1/7/1983 till 8/12/1999 thus entitling the petitioner for revision of scale at given intervals as per “Assured Career Progression Scheme” in lieu of him being posted against the same post from 1983 to 1999.” 2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioner was initially engaged on daily wage basis by the respondents-Corporation on 02.11.1982 and thereafter as per ofÏce order dated 17.08.1983 (Annexure P-1), his services were regularized as Workshop Helper w.e.f. 01.07.1983. Later on, he was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.810-1440 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. When the petitioner was serving at Tara Devi with the respondents-corporation in the year 1993, he was found driving unauthorizedly a bus on 02.06.1993 at 2 p.m. from Tara Devi to Shoghi. The bus being driven by him struck with 3 a private car bearing Registration No. HP-03-0319 near Tara Devi and he left the bus on the accidental spot. Later on, an FIR was registered against him and he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 03.06.1993. Subsequently, the petitioner was charge-sheeted vide memo. dated 28.07.1993 and a regular inquiry was conducted against him. The charges leveled against the petitioner were proved. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice on 23.06.1997 to impose penalty of reduction of pay by two stages for a period of two years. But after consideration of the reply submitted by him to the show cause notice, the charge-sheet dated 28.07.1993 was dropped and the petitioner was exonerated of the charges. The petitioner who was also facing trial for the commission of offence under Sections 279/337 IPC and under Section 3/197 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was acquitted on 27.03.1997 (Annexure P-2). 3. The petitioner has claimed that the persons who were junior to him were promoted to the post of Welder in 4 the year 1995, but he was promoted to the said post vide ofÏce order dated 19.11.1998. Further, the petitioner has claimed that he ought to have been given the initial start of pay of Rs.950-1800 w.e.f. 01.01.1986, whereas he was given the pay scale of Rs.810-1440 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. The action on the part of the respondent-Corporation in not promoting him in the year 1995 and further not granting him the pay scale of Rs.950-1800/- as granted to others is contrary to the policy and violative of cardinal principles of service rules. 4. Respondents No.2 to 4 filed reply to the petition and averred that the petitioner was not promoted to the post of Welder in the year 1995, since his service record was found unsatisfactory and benefit of ACP Scheme was also not allowed to him. So far as the grant of pay scale of Rs.950-1800 is concerned, it was to be granted only to those employees who had acquired the qualification of matriculation, with ITI pass/certificate holders, with initial start of Rs.1000 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Since the petitioner did not possess the said 5 qualification of Matriculation with Diploma of ITI, he was not paid the said pay scale of Rs.950-1800/-. Further, it has been averred that the petitioner was already drawing Rs.1220/- w.e.f. 15.02.1994. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 6. It is not in dispute that when the claim of the petitioner for promotion was rejected from the year 1995, the respondents-Corporation had not taken the stand that it was on account of unsatisfactory service record of the petitioner. It was also not mentioned that the petitioner was not granted the benefit of ACP Scheme. The petitioner could not have pleaded regarding the non-communication of the ACRs in the writ petition, when the same was instituted by him against the rejection of his claim, to promote him as Welder from back date, once there was no such stand. However, the petitioner has specifically mentioned in his rejoinder that he was never communicated about the ACRs and this fact has 6 not been denied by the respondents-Corporation, since no response has been filed to the rejoinder. 7. It is also not in dispute that though initially a penalty was imposed upon the petitioner by the respondents- Corporation, however, later on, he was exonerated of the charges. Not only this, even in a criminal case, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges leveled against him, as is evident from perusal of copy of judgment dated 27.03.1997 (Annexure P-2). 8. Once, the petitioner had been exonerated of the charges by the respondents-Corporation before the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court, he ought to have been considered for promotion from the year 1995, when other persons were promoted. The petitioner was not promoted due to his unsatisfactory service record, but he was not conveyed about the unsatisfactory service record and furthermore, he was not conveyed about his ACRs. Thus, he could not have been ignored for promotion to the post of 7 Welder in the year 1995 and further deprived of the benefit of ACP Scheme. Therefore, the petitioner is held entitled to be promoted from the date when juniors to him were promoted in the year 1995 and also the benefit of ACP Scheme, with all consequential benefits. 9. So far as the claim raised by the petitioner with respect to grant of pay scale is concerned, once the petitioner himself has admitted that he was not a matriculate and did not possess ITI diploma, no illegality can be found in the action of the respondents not to release the benefit of pay scale of Rs.950-1800/-, especially, when as per the Rules in place, only matriculate ITI pass/certificate holders were entitled to the said pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1986. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid much emphasis that the persons who were similarly situate and were not having the qualification of Matriculation with ITI certificate, they have been granted the benefit. 11. It is settled law that the person who comes to the 8 Court cannot claim negative parity and thus, the said contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is ill founded and hence rejected. 12. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the respondents-Corporation is directed to promote the petitioner to the post of Welder from the year 1995 with all consequential benefits and also grant him the benefit of the ACP Scheme. Since the petitioner has died and his legal representatives have been brought on record, the benefits shall be disbursed to them as per law within a period of three months from today and in case, the benefits are not paid within three months, the respondents-Corporation shall pay interest on the arrears @6% per annum from today till the actual date of payment. No orders as to cost. 13. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 20 th May, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge