Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shiv Dutt Sharma And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 26 February, 2026
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2026:HHC:4608
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
CWP No. 19484 of 2025
a/w CWP No. 19455 and
19497 of 2025 & CWPs No.
1257, 1258, 1267 and 1857
of 2026
Decided on: 26.02.2026
of
CWP No. 19484 of 2025
Shiv Dutt Sharma and others .......Petitioners
rt Versus
Union of India and others ... Respondents
CWP No. 19455 of 2025
Dr. Vishal and others .......Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others ... Respondents
CWP No. 19497 of 2025
Dr. Gaurav Soni and others .......Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others ... Respondents
CWP No. 1257 of 2026
Dr. Geeta Devi and others .......Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others ... Respondents
CWP No. 1258 of 2026
Dr. Himanshu Joshi and others .......Petitioners
Versus
::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2026 20:30:26 :::CIS
2
2026:HHC:4608
Union of India and others ... Respondents
.
CWP No. 1267 of 2026
Anmol Rattan and others .......Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others ... Respondents
CWP No. 1857 of 2026
of
Dr. Komalpreet Kaur and others .......Petitioners
rt Versus
Union of India and others ... Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
_____________________________________________________
CWPs No. 19484, 19455 and 19497 of 2025
For the petitioners : Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI with Mr.
Rajeev Sharma, Advocate.
CWPs No. 1257, 1258, 1267 and 1857 of 2026
For the petitioners : Mr. Yogesh K. Chandel, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI with Mr.
Rajeev Sharma, Advocate.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
Tag CWPs No. 19455, 19497 of 2025 & CWPS No. 1257, 1258, 1267 and 1857 of 2026 with CWP No. 19494 of 2026.
2. As common issues of facts and law are involved in these 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2026 20:30:26 :::CIS 32026:HHC:4608 petitions, they are being decided by way of a common judgment. For .
the purpose of dictating the judgment, the Court shall be referring to the relief clause as well as documents appended with CWP No. 19484 of 2025.
3. In CWP No. 19484, the petitioners have inter alia prayed of for the following reliefs:-
"i) That writ of certiorari may kindly be issued, quashing rt and setting aside the impugned order dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure P-5), since the same is discriminatory in nature, in view of the fact that all the employees are getting the revised monthly pay in terms of the revision carried by the respondent authorities, but qua the petitioners, said revised monthly pay has been withdrawn on the ground that their petition is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
i) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent authorities to grant the revised monthly pay to the petitioners qua their respective streams in view the revision of monthly pay carried by the respondent authorities on 24.07.2025.
iii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent authorities not to effect recoveries from the petitioners, since the said payment has been made by the respondent authorities in accordance with law to the petitioners in terms of the revision of monthly salary of the contractual employees carried by the respondent authorities on 24.07.2025. (iii) That the similar relief as was given by this Hon'ble Court to similarly situated petitioner as per annexure P-4 to P-6 may kindly be granted to the petitioner.
iv) That the directions may kindly be issued to the ::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2026 20:30:26 :::CIS 4 2026:HHC:4608 respondents to produce the entire record pertaining to the .
case for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court."
4. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at this stage itself.
5. The controversy involved in this case is in a very narrow of compass. The petitioners herein were appointed under ECHS Programme and are serving against various posts, as stand rt mentioned in the writ petition. As there was a threat of their disengagement on account of a fresh advertisements being issued by the ECHS to fill up the posts against which the petitioners were working, they approached the Court and are still continuing to serve the department on contract basis on the strength of Court orders.
6. In the meanwhile, in terms of Annexure P-5, communication dated 28.11.2025, there was revision of remuneration of contractual employees of ECHS Polyclinics, however, the revision was denied to the contractual employees like the petitioners who were continuing on the strength of Court orders with the observation that they will be paid unrevised rate of salary.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of present writ petition.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the denial of revised remuneration to the petitioners, who are continuing ::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2026 20:30:26 :::CIS 5 2026:HHC:4608 on the strength of Court orders, is totally unjustified. He submitted .
that it is not as if an employee who is serving on contract basis on the basis of Court orders is not performing the same duties as are being performed by the other contractual employees. Learned Counsel further submitted that the wages are paid to contractual of employees for work being extracted from them by the employer and because the petitioners are continuing on the basis of Court orders, rt this does not gives any tool to the respondents to deny the revision of remuneration of contractual employees to the petitioners. Learned Counsel also argued that as the respondents themselves have realized that the remunerations of the contractual employees have to be revised, the benefit thereof has to be given to all irrespective of the fact whether they are working on the strength of Court orders or otherwise. Accordingly, learned Counsel submitted that as the embargo imposed upon the petitioners and other similarly situated persons is completely arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, therefore, this petition be allowed and the clause 2 of Annexure P-5 be struck down by issuing a direction to the respondents to pay to the petitioners the revised remunerations of contractual employees.
9. On the other hand, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India by referring to the reply filed by the respondents, submitted ::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2026 20:30:26 :::CIS 6 2026:HHC:4608 that a conscious decision was taken to revise the remunerations of .
contractual employees and not granting the revision thereof to the contractual employees who are working on the strength of Court orders is also a conscious decision. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India argued that as an employee who is otherwise serving on of contract basis constitutes a different class from the one who is continuing on the strength of Court orders, therefore, there is rt intelligible differentia between these two categories and therefore, non-grant of revised remunerations to the employees like the petitioners cannot be termed as discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, he prayed that as there is no merit in the present petition, the same deserves dismissal.
10. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as also learned Deputy Solicitor General of India and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith.
11. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are continuing to serve as of today on the strength of Court orders that have been passed in their favour, ordering their continuation by the Central Organization of ECHS on contract basis. This continuation, of course, is subject to outcome of the matter pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2026 20:30:26 :::CIS 72026:HHC:4608
12. The fact of the matter is that on the strength of orders .
that have been passed by the Court, the petitioners are continuing to serve the department on contract basis and they are performing the duties which a contractual employee in routine has to perform. It is not the case of the respondents herein that the nature of job being of performed by a contractual employee ordinarily serving ECHS is different from the one who is serving, though on contract basis, but rt on the strength of the Court orders. Obviously, in light of the fact that same and similar work is being performed by a contractual employee, be it the one who is serving the department in routine or be it the one who is serving the Department on contract basis, on the strength of Court orders, the principle of equal pay for equal work comes into vogue and similarly situated persons cannot be discriminated.
13. Even otherwise, Communication Annexure P-5, which provides for revision of remunerations of contract employees does not disclose as to why the contractual employees, who are serving on the strength of Court orders, should not be paid the revised remunerations and they should be continued to be paid the old rate of salary. This observation is not on account of any Court order which restricts the revision of pay of those contractual employees who are continuing on the strength of Court orders.
::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2026 20:30:26 :::CIS 82026:HHC:4608
14. There is a mention of communication dated 13.11.2025 .
in Annexure P-5 and this document is also appended with the reply filed by the respondents. Incidentally, a perusal of communication dated 13.11.2025 in general and Clause 2.2.3 thereof in particular demonstrates that the intent of the revision of remunerations of of contractual employees at ECHS Polyclinics (including those who pursued the legal remedies but did not get a positive order against rt enhancement or a blocking order) is to pay all contractual employees updated rates. What is mentioned in this clause is that only specific cases covered by stay or status quo orders qua enforceability of their previously signed MOA are to be kept outside the ambit of revised pay.
15. In the present case, none of the petitioners are continuing on the strength of any Court order wherein there is an embargo with regard to grant of revised remuneration to said employees. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that communication dated 13.11.2025 has been wrongly interpreted while issuing Annexure P5, dated 25.11.2025.
16. The contention of learned Deputy Solicitor General of India that a contract employee in routine serving the department and a contractual employee serving on the strength of Court orders ::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2026 20:30:26 :::CIS 9 2026:HHC:4608 constitutes two different classes and there is an intelligible .
differentia between them so as to discriminate them as far as the payment of revised remunerations is concerned, is not acceptable.
Even if this argument of learned Deputy Solicitor General of India is to be accepted by the Court that contractual employees in routine of serving the Department and contractual employees serving on the strength of Court orders do constitute two different categories, i.e. a rt category which is in routine serving the department and the other category which is serving on the strength of Court orders, even then, this classification has no nexus with the object of Annexure P-5 which is to provide revised remunerations to the employees serving on contractual basis.
17. It is settled law that under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, classification is permissible but this is so only if the classification is based on intelligible differentia and the said intelligible differentia has some nexus with the object to be achieved on the basis of the said intelligible differentia. Herein, the so called intelligible differentia which is being carved out so as to deny the revision of enhanced emoluments to the petitioners cannot pass the test of touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
18. Accordingly, in light of above discussion, this petition ::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2026 20:30:26 :::CIS 10 2026:HHC:4608 alongwith all connected matter, is allowed and Clause 2 of .
communication dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure P-5) is held to be bad in law and the respondents are directed to pay to the petitioners also the revised remunerations as are being paid to other contractual employees from the due date. Pending miscellaneous application(s), of if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) rt February 26, 2026 (narender) Judge ::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2026 20:30:26 :::CIS