Himachal Pradesh High Court
Gopal Krishan vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 26 June, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5545 of 2022 Date of Decision: 26.06.2025 .
_______________________________________________________ Gopal Krishan .......Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
... Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath & Mr. Piyush Mehta,
r Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.
____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs:-
"A. That a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued quashing the action of the Respondents to the extent whereby he has been denied actual benefits w.e.f 23.11.2019.
B. That a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued directing the Respondents to grant the petitioner actual monetary benefits on and w.e.f. 23.11.2019 along with interest @ 12% per annum.1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2025 21:16:52 :::CIS 2
C. That the entire relevant record of the case may kindly be ordered to be summoned from the respondents for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble to Registrar Court."
.
2. In the year 1991, petitioner was appointed as Voluntary Teacher in Government Primary School Lower Lalri, Tehsil Haroli, District Una, Himachal Pradesh. Subsequently, in year 1992, one candidate namely Ms. Anju Bala laid challenge to appointment of the petitioner in this Court by way of filing CWP No. 355 of 1992 titled as Anju Bala Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition, as a result thereof, appointment of the petitioner was set aside and in his place above named Anju Bala was ordered to be appointed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court, petitioner preferred SLP No. 8139 of 1993 titled as Gopal Krishan Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others before Hon'ble Apex Court. Hon'ble Apex Court, while allowing the SLP, reversed the judgment passed by Division Bench, as a result thereof, petitioner herein again came to be appointed against the post of JBT in place of Anju Bala.
3. In the year 1993, services of the petitioner were regularized on the post of JBT in the pay of Rs. 4550-7220/- with all admissible allowances. Since petitioner was not granted regularization well within time, he approached erstwhile HP State ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2025 21:16:52 :::CIS 3 Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 546 of 1997 titled as Gopal Krishan Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, .
seeking therein direction to the respondents to grant him the benefit of seniority and salary for the period, he was out of the employment due to the operation orders passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 355 of 1992. However vide order dated 08.07.1998, erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal dismissed the application.
4. Petitioner submitted representation to respondent No. 3, wherein he highlighted his grievance that though his services have been regularized after taking into consideration his initial date of appointment i.e. 25.02.1992, but vide office order dated 03.04.2012, he was held entitled for all service benefits including the seniority for the period for which he remained in service. Since needful was not done, petitioner again in the year 2018 approached erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application No. 4530 of 2018 titled as Gopal Krishan Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, which ultimately came to be transferred to this Court on account of abolishment of erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal and was re-
registered as CWPOA No. 5013 of 2020.
5. In afore proceedings, Coordinate Bench of this Court quashed corrigendum dated 15.12.2018, whereby the respondent-
department had withdrawn earlier office order dated 03.04.2012 vide ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2025 21:16:52 :::CIS 4 which conscious decision had been taken to count the service rendered by the petitioner as a Volunteer Teacher for all service .
benefits. On account of wrong assignment of seniority in the cadre of JBT, petitioner herein came to be denied promotion to the post of Head Teacher. However, subsequently respondent-department, vide order dated 22.12.2021, promoted the petitioner to the post of Head Teacher w.e.f 23.11.2019 but on notional basis, whereas he was entitled to promotion with all actual benefits.
6. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that once respondents themselves have corrected their mistake by assigning correct seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of JBT, as a result thereof, he has been held entitled to promotion to the post of Head Teacher w.e.f.
23.11.2019 benefits, if any, flowing from aforesaid promotion could not have been made on notional basis rather taking note of the fact that petitioner was throughout working as JBT and he was wrongly denied promotion to the post of Head Teacher, department ought to have granted actual benefits attached to the post of Head Teacher.
Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel for the petitioner, while making this Court peruse provision contained in fundamental rules i.e. FR22(1) (a)
(i) stating therein that for the purpose of release of benefit under ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2025 21:16:52 :::CIS 5 aforesaid provision the scale of feeder post as well as promotional post is relevant. The FR(1) (a) (i) is applicable in those cases where .
promotional post carries duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching to the post held by him. He submitted that since post of Head Teacher carries duties and responsibilities than the post of JBT as has been held by this Court in CWP No. 2500 of 2021 titled as Ranjit Singh and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and connected matters, which has otherwise attained finality, petitioner could not have been denied benefits attached to the post of Head Teacher on actual basis.
7. To the contrary, Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, while justifying the impugned action of the respondents, specifically invited attention of this Court to the reply filed by the respondents-State to state that though bare reading of FR22(III) defines that appointment carrying duties and responsibilities of higher importance, but also provides that appointment shall not be deemed to involve the assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance, if the post to which it is made on the same scale of pay as post, other than tenure post, which Government servant holds on regular basis at the time of promotion or appointment or on a scale of pay identical therewith. Mr. Verma, states that though on account of correction in the seniority, petitioner herein has been held ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2025 21:16:52 :::CIS 6 entitled to promotion to the post of Head Teacher w.e.f 2019, but since it is not in dispute that pay scale of both the posts is same, no .
benefit of FR22(1) (a) can be granted. While referring to judgment passed in Ranjit Singh (supra), Mr. Verma, argued that same is not applicable in the case at hand because in that case dispute was with regard to cut off date. He submitted that Head Teacher's, who were promoted prior to 01.10.2012, were not granted promotional increments, whereas those promoted on or after 01.10.2012 were granted such increments. However, Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ranjit Singh (supra) held that respondents cannot restrict grant of promotional increment only to those HTs, who got promoted, as such after 01.10.2012. Mr. Verma, however, submits that judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ranjit Singh cannot be made applicable in the present case.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that there is no dispute that precise grouse with regard to correction in the seniority list of JBTs ultimately came to be decided in favour of the petitioner.
Respondents, taking note of judgments passed by this Court as well as erstwhile Tribunal, proceeded to correct the seniority of the petitioner, as a result thereof, he became entitled to promotion to the post of Head Teacher in 2019.
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2025 21:16:52 :::CIS 79. Though careful perusal of office order dated 22.12.2021 (Annexure P-14) clearly reveals that petitioner has been promoted as .
Head Teacher on regular basis in the pay scale of Rs. 10300- 34800+4400 Grade pay w.e.f 23.11.2019. However, he should have been granted promotion earlier on the date, when he had actually became entitled to it, had the prayer made on his behalf for correction of seniority been accepted by the department at the appropriate time.
10. Now, the precise grouse of the petitioner is that since he has been found entitled to be promoted against the post of Head Teacher in year 2019, coupled with the fact that from day one he was ready and willing to work, but on account of dispute qua seniority, he was wrongly not promoted to the post of Head Teacher and actual benefits, if any, on account of his promotion shall be given to him in the shape of promotional increment, which is otherwise permissible FR22(1) (a) (i).
11. Though Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently placed reliance upon FR22(III) to state that if the post to which promotion is made have same scale of pay as that post, other than tenure post, cannot claim promotional increment in terms of FR22(1) (a) (i). However, having carefully perused FR22 (1) (a) (i) in its entirety, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General. FR22(1) (a) (i) ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2025 21:16:52 :::CIS 8 provides that for the purpose of release of benefit under aforesaid provision, the scale of feeder post as well as promotional post are .
relevant. The FR(1) (a) (i) is applicable in those cases, where promotional post carries duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching to the post held by him. Once it is not in dispute that petitioner, on account of his promotion to the post of Head Teacher, shall be carrying duties and responsibilities greater than the post held by him in the capacity of JBT. Promotional increment as is being claimed by the petitioner in the capacity of Head Teacher cannot be denied to him. FR22(iii) defines that appointment carrying duties and responsibilities of higher importance, meaning thereby, there is a distinction between two posts, one is the post from which person or employee is promoted to the post carrying higher responsibility. FR22(III) further provides that in case appointment does not involve the assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance, then person claiming such promotional increment cannot be granted increment, but promotion against the higher post is expected to entrust greater responsibilities, as such certainly he is entitled to be granted promotional increment in terms of aforesaid provision of law.
12. Moreover, this Court finds that aforesaid issue has been dealt with in detail by the Division Bench of this Court in Ranjit Singh ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2025 21:16:52 :::CIS 9 (supra). No doubt, issue before the Coordinate Bench was with regard to entitlement to promotional increment to the Head Teachers .
promoted prior to 01.10.2012, but Coordinate Bench, taking note of dispute in its entirety, categorically held that respondents cannot restrict grant of promotional increment only to those HTs, who got promoted as such after 01.10.2012. Coordinate Bench further held that the respondents have created a class within the same set of employees. Category of HTs has been divided into two groups, one who got promoted prior to 01.10.2012 and the other who were promoted after 01.10.2012. There is no rationale behind creating these two groups. Such an action of the respondents in creating these groups for the purpose of paying promotional increment is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
13. No doubt, dispute, otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings, may be different from the controversy decided in Ranjit Singh, but since Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ranjit Singh has held that respondents cannot cannot restrict grant of promotional increment to those HTs who got promoted as such after 01.10.2012, coupled with the fact that petitioner stands promoted to the post of Head Teacher after passing of aforesaid judgment that too w.e.f year 2019 and benefits flowing from promotion could not be made on notional basis, rather ought to have been granted on actual ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2025 21:16:52 :::CIS 10 basis. Moreover, this Court finds that though pay scale of JBT and Head Teacher is similar, but very purpose and object of promotion is .
to encourage JBTs, who in the event of their being promoted to the post of Head Teacher, which post carries higher responsibility than that of JBT, are entitled to promotional increment in terms of RF22(1)
(a) (i).
14. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is allowed.
Respondents are directed to promote petitioner to the post of Head Teacher w.e.f. 23.11.2019 and benefits arising therefrom shall be deemed to have been granted on actual basis from the due date with all consequential financial benefits qua the petitioner.
p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 26, 2025 (Sunil) ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2025 21:16:52 :::CIS