Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 06.06.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another on 12 September, 2025
2025:HHC:31473 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPOA No.3530 of 2020 Reserved on: 06.06.2025 Announced on:12.09.2025 .
____________________________________________________________ Vikas Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another ...Respondents Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting ? Yes For the petitioner: Ms. Pooja Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Ravinder Singh Chandel, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge Petitioner-Vikas Kumar, a Constable under the State Authorities has come up before this Court, seeking the following relief(s):
"a. That the impugned instructions dated 15.07.2017 Annexure A-4 being illegal may very kindly be quashed and set aside.
b. That the respondents may very kindly be directed to grant actual financial benefits to the applicant similar to 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
-2- 2025:HHC:31473 the persons appointed through same recruitment process and from the same date as has been extended to them as per Annexure A-7 and other consequential benefits.
.
c. That respondents may very kindly be directed to pay the arrear of pay scale and other related financial benefits along with interest @ 12% per annum to the applicant."
FACTUAL MATRIX IN EARLIER ROUND OF LITIGATION IN CWP No 7214 OF 2010 DECIDED ON 11.12.2014:
2. Case set by Learned Counsel is that the Respondents 1 and 2 commenced the recruitment process for filling-up the posts of Constable during the year 2010. Petitioner being OBC-Unreserved, applied for the post of Constable under OBC-UR category. As per the recruitment norms, petitioner faced selection process at different stages including physical efficiency test, written test and the interview conducted by the Selection Committee constituted by the respondents. However, to the dismay of the petitioner, the Respondents 1 and 2, appointed one Shri Honey Kumar [Respondent No.4 in CWP No. ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
-3- 2025:HHC:31473 7214 of 2010] against OBC Unreserved post and one Sh. Mahender Singh [Respondent No.5 in CWP No. 7214 of 2010 against the reserved posts of .
Constable meant for OBC IRDP] on 07.01.2011 by wrongly applying reservation norms. Feeling aggrieved, against wrongful selection and appointment of the Respondents 4 and 5 as Constable on 07.01.2011, the petitioner filed a CWP No.7214 of 2010, Vikas Kumar versus r State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 11.12.2014, {Annexure A-1}, and in Para 12 of the said judgement, the selection and appointment of respondents 4 and 5 {Honey Kumar and Mahender Singh} was set-aside; with directions to the State Authorities to consider and appoint the petitioner on the post of Police Constable against OBC-Unreserved post; with further directions that the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. In Para 17 of judgment, the Court left it open for the State Authorities to consider the ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
-4- 2025:HHC:31473 desirability of not dispensing with the services of Respondents 4 and 5 by creating a supernumerary post or adjusting them against any of future vacancy.
.
Pursuant to the passing of judgment on 11.12.2014, Annexure A-1, in CWP No. 7214 of 2010 [supra], Commandant 1st India Reserve Battalion, Bangarh, District Una issued an office order on 18.4.2015, Annexure A-2, appointing the petitioner as Constable with immediate r effect, in the pay scale of Rs.
5910-20200+1900 Grade Pay. Based on this, the petitioner joined as Constable on 18.04.2015 under Commandant 1st IRBn, Bangarh, District Una. After joining as such, the petitioner made a representation to Commandant IRBn on 21.05.2015, Annexure A-3 and on 04.11.2016, Annexure A-3 [Colly] requesting to give appointment and financial benefits from the date other similarly placed constables who were recommended /appointed on 07.01.2011, in terms of the judgement. Since nothing was done, therefore, ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
-5- 2025:HHC:31473 the petitioner filed an Execution Petition No. 73 of 2017 and during the pendency of Execution Petition, Official Respondents-Commandant, IRBn, Bangarh .
in District Una (HP) issued an order on 11.07.2017, {Annexure A-4(Colly) /Annexure R-1, whereby, the Official-Respondents treated the petitioner as a Constable w.e.f. 07.01.2011 and granted benefit of pay fixation in pay band of Rs.5910-20200+ 1900 GP w.e.f. 07.01.2011 on notional basis and actual monetary benefits were released from the date of actual joining as Constable on 18.04.2015 onwards. In view of the orders dated 11.07.2017, Annexure A-4 (colly)/Annexure R-1, Execution Petition No 73 of 2017 was disposed of on 08.08.2017 vide Annexure A-5, reserving liberty to the petitioner to independently assail the same in appropriate proceedings.
CLAIM IN INSTANT PETITION [CWPOA No 3530 OF 2020]:
3. In instant petition, the grievance of the ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
-6- 2025:HHC:31473 petitioner is that in terms of the orders dated 11.07.2017, Annexure A-4 (Colly)/Annexure R-1, though the State Authorities have appointed the .
petitioner as Constable w.e.f. 07.01.2011 but such appointment has been made on notional basis but without financial benefits till his actual joining on 18.04.2015, which was contrary to the findings recorded by this Court in Para 12 of the judgement dated 11.12.2014 r [Annexure A-1] CWP No.7214 of 2010, filed by petitioner-Vikas Kumar when, the appointment was to be given with all consequential benefits and once other similarly placed incumbents who were appointed as Constables on 07.01.2011, were granted the re-revised/higher pay scale of Rs.
10300-34800+3200 Grade Pay in terms of the HPCS [Category/Post Wise Revised] Rules, 2012 after completion of two years of regular service by fixing another similarly placed incumbent, namely Arun Kumar of District Bilaspur at Rs. 13500 w.e.f. 8.3.2013 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
-7- 2025:HHC:31473 vide Annexure A-7, whereas the petitioner was fixed at a basic pay of Rs. 6150 in February, 2017, vide Annexure A-6. In these circumstances, the petitioner .
has prayed for quashing the pay fixation orders dated 11.07.2017, Annexure A-4 colly/Annexure R-1, with the prayer to release all consequential benefits, including financial benefits and pay and allowances for entire period of notional service from 07.11.2011 and then to give benefit of entire service w.e.f. 07.1.2011 for higher pay after completion of two years of regular service as Constable w.e.f. 08.03.2013 as granted to others with all consequential benefits.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND BEFORE THIS COURT:
4. Petitioner filed an Original Application No. 6270 of 2017 before State Administrative Tribunal and upon issuance of notice, the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, filed a Reply-Affidavit dated 23.02.2018. After abolition of Tribunal, the matter was transferred to this Court and was ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
-8- 2025:HHC:31473 registered as CWPOA No. 3530 of 2020.
STAND OF RESPONDENTS IN REPLY-AFFIDAVIT:
5. In Reply, the stand of the State Authorities .
is two-fold; firstly that the actual financial benefits as Constable for the period from 07.01.2011 to 17.04.2015 cannot be extended to the petitioner in view of Fundamental Rule 17(1) and secondly, State Government issued a Notification on 14.01.2015 {Taken on rrecord} whereby, the higher pay scale of Rs. 10300-34800+3200 GP was to be given after completion of eight (8) years of regular service. It is averred that but since the petitioner has not rendered two years of actual service but had actually joined on 18.04.2015, Annexure A-2, therefore, the benefit of higher pay scale on completion of two years was not admissible.
5(i). Stand of the State Authorities in the Reply-Affidavit, in denying actual financial-monetary benefits but in giving notional benefits, is bone out ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
-9- 2025:HHC:31473 from Para 1 of Reply-Affidavit, as under:
1. That the contents of this para are incorrect and hence denied. It is, however, submitted that in pursuance to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of H.P in CWP .
No 7214 of 2010 titled as Vikas Kumar vs State of H.P and others, the applicant was appointed as Constable in 1st India Reserve Battalion Bangarh District Una (HP) vide order dated 18.4.2015. It is further submitted that applicant was granted all consequential benefits from the date when other persons were recruited in the year 2010 for fixation of pay purposes on notional basis and financial benefit were allowed from actual date of joining. The benefit of r higher scale was not granted to the applicant in terms of Govt. of H.P notification dated 14.1.2015, as he did not fulfil criteria of two years regular service in a cadre on the date of notification ibid. Thus the action of the respondent State is legal, fair and just and the same needs to be upheld."
5(ii). The stand of State Authorities in the Reply Affidavit, in denying the benefit of higher scale on completion of two years of regular service, by applying the Notification dated 14.01.2025, reads as under:-
"4(iii) That in reply to contents of this para it is re-iterated that applicant was given ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 10 - 2025:HHC:31473 appointment as Constable in 1" India Reserve Battalion Bangarh District Una (HP) vide order dated 18.4.2015 in the pay scale of Rs. 5,910-10,300 +1900/-
GP and after the completion of eight years regular service he will be placed .
in the next higher pay band i.e. Rs.
10,300- 34,800+3200/-GP in terms of Govt. of HP Notification dated 14.01.2015. It is pertinent to submit here that the matter with regard to applicability of according consequential benefits to applicant was decided in consultation with the Govt. of H.P. The Home Department Govt. of H.P vide their letter dated 22.3.2016 informed that as per provisions contained in Rule- 17(1) of FRs, an officer/official shall begin to draw the pay and allowances attached to his tenure of a post with effect from the date when he assumes the duties of that post. The applicant has joined the duties as recruit Constable on 18.4.2015 whereas Hon'ble Court has entitled the petitioner to all consequential benefits. Therefore he may be allowed benefits (like pay fixation) notionally and financial benefits from the date of actual joining /taking over charge. Accordingly, the pay of applicant was fixed on notional basis from the date of recruitment of applicant when other persons were recruited in the year 2010 vide order dated 11.07.2017 by the Commandant 1ª India Reserve Battalion Bangarh District Una (HP). A copy of order dated 11.7.2017 is annexed herewith as Annexure R-1."
::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS - 11 - 2025:HHC:31473
REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER:-
6. Though no rejoinder has been filed but
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently .
contended that provision of FR 17 is not applicable when, the petitioner had a right to be considered and to be appointed as Constable but was wrongly denied the appointment and moreover when, his right was vindicated by this Court, in CWP No. 7214 of 2010, Vikas Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 11.12.2014, Annexure A-1, upon which, the petitioner was given appointment on 18.4.2015, Annexure A-2, and Official Respondents antedated his appointment as such on 11.07.2017 w.e.f. 07.01.2011, Annexure A-4 (colly)/Annexure R-1.
In this background, it is submitted that once the petitioner was not at fault then, the appointment given retrospectively shall entitle the petitioner for actual monetary benefits. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that once the respondents have ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 12 - 2025:HHC:31473 treated the petitioner to be a regular Constable from 07.01.2011 then, the entire service from 07.01.2011 has to be treated as regular service for all purposes, .
entitling petitioner for higher pay scale on completion of two years of service in terms of the Notification dated 28.09.2012 w.e.f. 07.01.2013 as has been given to other similarly situated persons including Arun Kumar [as in Annexure A-7, at page 35 of paper book]. r
7. Heard Ms. Pooja Thakur, Learned Vice Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Learned Additional Advocate General for the Respondents-State.
STATUTORY PROVISIONS:
8. In order to appreciate the rival contentions it is necessary to have a recap of Fundamental Rule 17, which reads as under:-
F.R. 17. (1) Subject to any exceptions specifically made in these rules and to the provision of sub-rule (2), an officer shall begin to draw the pay and allowances attached to his tenure ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 13 - 2025:HHC:31473 of a post with effect from the date when he assumes the duties of that post, and shall cease to draw them as soon as he ceases to discharge those duties:
Provided that an officer who is absent .
from duty without any authority shall not be entitled to any pay and allowances during the period of such absence.
(2) The date from which a person recruited overseas shall commence to draw pay on first appointment shall be determined by the general or special orders of the authority by whom he is appointed.
[[ 8(i). State Authorities issued Himachal Pradesh Civil Services [Category/Post-wise Revised Pay] Rules on 24.09.2012 and notified the Schedule for various posts of Police Department on 28.09.2012 [Taken on Record] providing for giving revised-higher pay scale of Rs.10300-34800+ 3200 GP to the Constables after completion of two years of regular service; in following terms:-
GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH FINANCE (PAY REVISION) DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION No. Fin(PR)-B(7)-64/2010- Dated: Shimla-2, the 28th September, 2017 In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 9 of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Category /Post ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 14 - 2025:HHC:31473 wise Revised Pay) Rules, 2012, with Rule 3 of rules ibid, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh, is pleased the following categories/posts in the "Schedule" to the rules ibid, as under.
Sr. Name of the Pay Grade Remarks, Date from .
No. category/ Band Pay if any which
post. applicable
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1. Director, 37400- 8900 ------- 01.10.2012
Forensic 67000
Science
Laboratory
2. Deputy 15600- 7600 ---------- 01.10.2012
Director, 39100
Forensic
Science
Laboratory
3. Constable (i) 1900 7810 Already
r 5910- Initial existing
20200 Start
ii)
10300- 3200 This PB & 01.10.2012
34800 GP will be
given
after 2
years of
regular
service.
4. Head 10300- 3600 ----------- 01.10.2012
Constable 34800
5 Assistant 10300- 4400 -------- 01.10.2012
Sub 34800
Inspector
Sub 10300- 4600 ---------- 01.10.2012
6. Inspector 34800
7. Inspector 10300- 4800 ----------- 01.10.2012
34800
By Order
Sd/-
Principal Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 15 - 2025:HHC:31473 8(ii). As a sequel to the Revised Rules of 2012, the State Authorities issued another Notification on 14.01.2015, by substituting its earlier notification and .
providing that higher pay scale of Rs.10300-34800 + 3200 GP will be given w.e.f 01.01.2015 on completion 8 years of regular service as under:-
GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH FINANCE (PAY REVISION) DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION No. Fin(PR)-B(7)-64/2010-Dated: Shimla-2, the 14th January, 2015 In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule
9 read with Rule 3 of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Category/Post wise Revised Pay) Rules, 2012, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh, is pleased to henceforth substitute the words and figures appearing against Sr. No.3 under Heading 15 HOME DEPARTMENT of the Schedule appended to rules ibid, notified vide this Department's notification of even number dated 28th September, 2012, as under:
Sr. Name of the Pay Grade Remarks, if Date from No category / Band Pay any which post. applicable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1. Constable i) 1900 7810 Initial Entry 5910- Start Level 20200 Scale.
ii) 10300- 3200 This pay 01-01-
34800 Band & 2015
Grade Pay
::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 16 - 2025:HHC:31473
will be
given after
8 years of
regular
service.
By Order
.
-Sd-
Principal Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh ANALYSIS:
9. Taking into account the material on record and entirety of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view, that the condition of notionalr benefits inserted in the orders dated 11.07.2017 [Annexure A-4/Annexure R-1], denying the actual monetary benefits to the petitioner for the period from 07.01.2011 to 17.04.2015 as Constable ;
and denial of higher pay band and grade pay from the date of completion of two years regular service as a Constable w.e.f. 07.01.2013 from the date it was granted to other similarly placed counterparts /juniors and the denial of the basic pay at par with one Sh. Arun Kumar as in Annexure A-7, does not stand the test of judicial scrutiny, for the following ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 17 - 2025:HHC:31473 reasons:-
9(i). Respondents initiated selection process for filling-up 32 posts of Constables in the year 2010, .
in which the petitioner and other eligible candidates, including Shri Honey Kumar and Shri Mahender Singh [Respondents No.4 & 5] and Shri Arun Kumar [as in Annexure A-7] participated and were appointed as Constables on 07.01.2011, whereas, the petitioner was denied appointment due to wrong and incorrect application of reservation roster. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed a CWP No. 7214 of 2010, which was allowed on 11.12.2014, Annexure A-1, by quashing the appointment of respondents 4 and 5 with the directions to consider and appoint-treat the petitioner as a Constable against OBC-Unreserved post with all consequential benefits. Pursuant to the passing of the judgment dated 11.12.2014, Annexure A-1, the Official Respondents issued an order on 18.4.2015, Annexure A-2, appointing the petitioner as Constable ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 18 - 2025:HHC:31473 in the pay scale of Rs. 5910-20200+1900 GP but said appointment of petitioner was again antedated by State Authorities on 11.07.2017 w.e.f. 07.01.2011 .
[Annexure A-4/ Annexure R-1]. Perusal of above facts establish that though the Respondents have issued the rectification orders on 11.07.2017 [Annexure A-4 / Annexure R-1] by treating the petitioner to have been appointed as Constable w.e.f. 07.01.2011 from the date other similarly placed Constables from the same selection were appointed in the month of January 2011 but the respondents have imposed a condition in orders dated 11.07.2017 that the benefits shall accrue on notional basis, resulting in depriving the petitioner of the actual financial benefits, which were due to him in the normal course as Constable w.e.f.
07.01.2011 to 17.04.2015, in an arbitrary and illegal, manner, which was unsustainable.
CONDITION OF NOTIONAL BENEFITS ILLEGAL:
9(ii). Material on record reveals that once the ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 19 - 2025:HHC:31473 petitioner was denied the appointment as Constable against the post meant for OBC-UR incumbents due to the wrong application of reservation roster, while .
appointing other OBC incumbents, namely, Sh. Honey Kumar and Mahender Singh, by ignoring the rightful claim of the petitioner against OBC-UR post, which compelled the petitioner to file a CWP No. 7214 of 2010 and the same was allowed by this Court on 11.12.2014, Annexure A-1, vindicating the right of the petitioner and the State Action in wrongfully denying appointment to the petitioner but in giving such appointment to others reserved incumbents was set-aside ; with directions to appoint and treat the petitioner as Constable against OBC-UR posts with all consequential benefits. In compliance to the judgement dated 11.12.2014, though the respondents had issued an order on 18.04.2015 Annexure A-2, appointing the petitioner as Constable and in terms of modified/orders issued on 11.07.2017 {Annexure A-::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 20 - 2025:HHC:31473 4/Annexure R-1} the appointment was antedated by appointing/treating the petitioner as Constable w.e.f.
07.01.2011 from same date from which other similarly .
placed persons, who have undergone selection along with petitioner in the year 2010 were appointed/ joined under the Respondents but while issuing the revised/modified orders, the State Authorities imposed a condition that the petitioner will be entitled for notional benefits for the period from 07.01.2011 till 17.04.2015.
Due to imposition of condition of notional benefits, the respondents have denied the actual financial-monetary benefits which would have accrued to the petitioner in normal course. Once the denial of appointment as well as denial of the right to work and to earn salary was attributable solely to the Respondents then, deprivation of financial benefits-
salary amounts to penalizing the petitioner, without any fault attributable to him, by imposing arbitrary ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 21 - 2025:HHC:31473 condition of notional benefits. Condition of notional benefits imposed/inserted in order dated 11.07.2017 amounts to penalizing the petitioner for the inaction .
-fault of respondents. The application of reservation roster-norms in recruitment was an act within the domain of the respondents, over which the petitioner had no say. The wrongful application of the reservation roster-norms had led to the ouster and non-selection of the petitioner as Constable against the reserved post of OBC-UR and the wrongful inclusion of one Honey Kumar and Mahender Singh against reserved posts meant for OBC-UR and OBC-IRDP inter-se wrongly/incorrectly. Inserting the condition of notional benefits amounts to giving leverage to the State Authorities for their inaction-fault, firstly, by denying the timely appointment to the petitioner along with his batch-mates (who faced the selection along with him in the year 2010 and were appointed as Constable in January 2011) and secondly in ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 22 - 2025:HHC:31473 depriving the petitioner of right to work and to earn salary in applicable and then in revised pay scale as given to other Constables who had participated .
in same selection and then appointed/joined and had worked and earned salary from date of joining on 07.01.2011 and thereafter the benefit of higher
-revised pay on completion of two years of regular service w.e.f. 07.01.2013. Inserting the condition of notional benefits, has resulting in denying salary-
monetary benefits for the period from 07.01.2011 to 17.04.2015 by acting totally contrary to and dehors the mandate in the judgement dated 11.12.2014 vide Annexure A-1, when, upon grant of appointment as a Constable, the petitioner was held entitled for "all consequential benefits" and aforesaid mandate contained in the judgement can neither be permitted to be defeated nor scuttled and negated just by inserting a condition to grant notional benefits in the orders dated 11.07.2017, which is an intentional ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 23 - 2025:HHC:31473 and willful attempt to evade the implementation of the judgement and to deny the rightful claims and legal entitlement from therefrom to the petitioner.
.
Once the judgement dated 11.12.2014 had attained finality then, the denial of benefits accruing from said judgement by inserting a condition in the orders dated 11.07.2017 to grant "notional benefits" instead of granting "all consequential benefits" is highly contemptuous.r Grant of all consequential benefits in the judgement dated 11.12.2014, has a definite purpose behind it, so as to restore the rights and entitlements, which were due but were denied by the State Authorities and also to ensure parity and to avoid the charge of discrimination to the petitioner vis-à-vis his counterparts and other similarly placed Constables, with whom he had undergone selection in the year 2010 but the State Action had led to his ouster, resulting in his non-selection due to the wrong application of reservation norms whereas ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 24 - 2025:HHC:31473 other incumbents, including Sh. Honey Kumar and Mahender Singh, including one Sh. Arun Kumar were appointed and had joined as Constable, in January .
2011 and were given higher pay on completion of two years regular service w.e.f. 07.01.2013 ignoring the rightful claim and entitlement of the petitioner for aforesaid benefits. Denial of financial benefits to the petitioner amount to treating the "equals as unequal", which is ex-facie violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Mere pendency of the writ petition in earlier round of litigation by the petitioner since the year 2010 till passing of judgement on 11.12.2014 and thereafter till its implementation on 18.04.2015 [Annexure A-2] cannot be a ground to deny financial benefits, by inserting the condition of notional benefits as no person can be made to suffer prejudice nor can be put to a disadvantageous position, due to the pendency of a petition in a judicial Forum/Court, as in this ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 25 - 2025:HHC:31473 case. Right to work and to earn salary cannot be denied. Right to receive salary is a legal entitlement and the same comes within the ambit of property .
under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and the petitioner cannot be deprived of the same without any authority of law. Deprivation of salary has visited the petitioner with civil consequences and the State Authorities cannot be deprived of and denied the rightful claims and legal entitlements of salary etc which accrue from the "appointment to a post" but without giving a prior notice and without giving a personal hearing and without recording any reasons, which was never given, cannot sustain. Besides, the State Authorities cannot invoke the plea of no work no pay, for the reason, that State Authorities have wrongly denied the appointment and the right to work and to earn salary by wrongly/illegally ousting the petitioner from selection due to wrong application of reservation roster-norms at the relevant time ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 26 - 2025:HHC:31473 in 2010 and this wrongful application of reservation roster-norms has led to the denial of appointment of the petitioner against reserved OBC post and .
such a right was vindicated, by setting aside the selection/appointment of the Respondents No. 4 and 5 in earlier round of litigation [CWP No. 7214 of 2010 Para 12 thereof]; with directions to the State Authorities to consider and to appoint the petitioner as a Constable against reserved post of OBC-UR with all consequential benefits.
NO WORK NO PAY AND DENIAL OF MONETARY BENEFITS ILLEGAL-WHEN EMPLOYEE NOT AT FAULT:
9(iii). Notably, the State Authorities were at fault and no fault was attributable to the petitioner and therefore, denial of monetary-financial benefits by invoking the plea of 'no work no pay' is not tenable in facts of instant case. Once the petitioner was eligible for post of Constable and had qualified physical tests and written tests and had thereafter participated in the interview for reserved OBC-UR ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 27 - 2025:HHC:31473 post but was ousted due to wrong application of reservation roster-norms whereas two other incumbents {namely Honey Kumar and Mahender Singh} were .
wrongfully selected/appointed against OBC posts {OBC-UR and OBC-IRDP inter-se} and this wrongful inclusion of two persons was declared illegal, by judicial intervention by this Court in CWP No 7214 of 2010 decided on 11.12.2014. Upon rectification of inaction, once the State Authorities appointed the petitioner as Constable on 18.04.2014 {Annexure A-2} and this order was modified on 11.07.2017 w.e.f. 07.01.2011 {Annexure P-4/Annexure R-1} therefore, once the petitioner was ready and willing to work during this period but was deprived of right to work, due to non-selection of petitioner wrongfully by an incorrect and wrong application of reservation roster-norms and this resulted in the wrongful inclusion of others without any fault attributable to him therefore, in these circumstances, ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 28 - 2025:HHC:31473 the plea of "no work no pay is neither attracted nor invocable" to prejudice and disadvantage of the petitioner, in facts of instant case. Moreover, .
the right to work and the right to earn salary is a legal entitlement accruing from "appointment and right to hold a post" and therefore, once the State Authorities have appointed the petitioner as a Constable from 07.01.2011 as in the orders dated 11.07.2017 {Annexure R-1/Annexure P-4} then, the action of the State Authorities in imposing the condition of notional benefits is just to deny the accruable salary-monetary benefits which would have accrued in normal course. The expression "appointment"
also encompasses "promotion" both are determinative of the "right to hold a post." Upon the grant of retrospective promotion, the rights and benefits which were denied unlawfully without any fault attributable to an employee stand restored/vindicated from due date. By applying the same principle, in instant case, ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 29 - 2025:HHC:31473 upon grant of retrospective appointment as Constable, the State Authorities cannot deny the rightful legal entitlements, including the salary-monetary benefits .
by inserting a condition of notional benefits for the period from 07.01.2011 to 17.04.2015 [i.e. till date of actual joining on 18.04.2015]. Further, the State action amounts to penalizing the petitioner without any fault attributable to the petitioner. The insertion of condition of "notional benefits" needs to be interfered with, for the reason, that permitting such a condition to operate-continue shall certainly amount to giving leverage to the State Authorities and shall also amount to giving premium to the State Authorities-Respondents for the wrongful acts and omissions of the authorities, due to incorrect application of reservation roster-norms over which the petitioner had no role, which had resulted in depriving the petitioner of the right of appointment and right to work and the right to earn salary as ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 30 - 2025:HHC:31473 granted to his counterparts/junior(s).
9(iv). The insertion of the condition of "notional benefits" is wholly arbitrary and punitive and the .
plea of "no work no pay", is neither applicable nor tenable in the teeth of the mandate of law, discussed hereinbelow.
9(iv-a). In State of Andhra Pradesh Versus K.V.L. Narasimha Rao and others, (1999) 4 SCC 181, it has been held that upon grant of retrospective promotion, an employee shall be entitled for all service benefits from the date such benefits were due but were denied to an employee in the following terms:-
"5. In normal circumstances when the retrospective promotions are effected all benefits flowing therefrom, including monetary benefits, must be extended to an officer who has been denied promotion earlier. However, on the reorganisation of States a large number of officers stood allotted from different States to the newly formed State and their services had to be intergrade on various principles and several agencies were involved in the same. The steps to ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 31 - 2025:HHC:31473 be taken thereto were one of formulation of principles, publication of a provisional inter-State seniority list, inviting objections thereto, consideration of those objections in consultation with the Central Govt. and acting upon its directions to bring the .
seniority list in conformity with such directions. This entire exercise involved a good deal of time and gave rise to extraordinary situation. It is in those circumstances that Rules contained in the Fundamental Rule 26 or Rule 40 of the Hyderabad Civil Services Regulations have been framed. As a matter of fact, rules of erstwhile State regarding seniority are not applicable in the new State as allottees are governed by the Act and seniority is finalised therein. Even r so, we do not see that there is any impediment to frame new rules affecting conditions of service off such allottees but in conformity with the Act. Surely new rules cannot be brushed aside by saying that they are not applicable to cases coming under the Act. There is no contention either in the High Court or before us that they are formed in contravention of the Act. In this background we fail to see as to why the Rules are not applicable to the respondents as held by the High Court."
9(iv-b). In State of Kerala and others Versus E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai, (2007) 6 SCC 524, it has been mandated that after grant of retrospective promotion to an employee who was denied this ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 32 - 2025:HHC:31473 benefit earlier without any fault attributable to him, shall be entitled to all service and monetary benefits and the principle of "no work no pay", cannot be .
invoked so as to deny such benefits in the following terms:-
"4. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that grant of retrospective benefit on promotional post cannot be given to the incumbent when he has not worked on the said post. Therefore, he is not entitled to any benefit on the promotional post from 15-6-1972. In support thereof, the learned counsel r invited our attention to the decisions of this Court in Virender Kumarv. Avinash Chandra Chadha, State of Haryana v. O.P. Gupta, A.K. Soumini v. State Bank of Travancore and Union of India v. Tarsem Lal. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent has invited our attention to the decisions given by this Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, State of A.P. v. K.V.L. Narasimha Rao, State of A.P. v. K.V.L. Narasimha Rao, Vasant Rao Roman v. Union of India and State of U.P. v. Vinod Kumar Srivastava. We have considered the decisions cited on behalf of both the sides. So far as the situation with regard to monetary benefits with retrospective promotion is concerned, that depends upon case to case. There are various facets which have to be considered. Sometimes in a case of departmental enquiry or in ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 33 - 2025:HHC:31473 criminal case it depends on the authorities to grant full back wages or 50 per cent of back wages looking to the nature of delinquency involved in the matter or in criminal cases where the incumbent has been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt .
or full acquittal. Sometimes in the matter when the person is superseded and he has challenged the same before Court or Tribunal and he succeeds in that and direction is given for reconsideration of his case from the date persons junior to him were appointed, in that case the Court may grant sometime full benefits with retrospective effect and sometimes it may not. Particularly when the administration has wrongly denied his due then in that case he should r be given full benefits including monetary benefit subject to there being any change in law or some other supervening factors. However, it is very difficult to set down any hard and fast rule. The principle "no work no pay" cannot be accepted as a rule of thumb. There are exceptions where courts have granted monetary benefits also.
5. However, so far as present case is concerned, as per directions given by the Court, petitioner's case was considered and it was found that persons junior to him were appointed and he was wrongly denied. Therefore, the petitioner was promoted from retrospective effect i.e. 15-9-1961 but he was not paid the benefit of promotion in terms of arrears of salary.
9(iv-c). In Ramesh Kumar versus Union of India ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 34 - 2025:HHC:31473 and others, (2015) 14 SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has outlined that incase, an employee was not at fault but was denied the right to work .
by the respondent ; then, after grant of retrospective promotion such an employee is entitled to all service benefits, including monetary benefits and principle of "no work no pay", is not applicable in such a case, in the following terms:-
"13. The respondents have advanced the argument that the denial of pay and r allowances is on the principle of "no work no pay" and no injustice has been done to the appellant since he has not actually worked in the promotional post of Naib Subedar during the aforesaid period. It was submitted that the benefit of pay and allowances was rightly awarded w.e.f. 13-11-2000, the date on which the appellant actually assumed the rank of Naib Subedar but his seniority was maintained so as to protect his interest in his further promotions.
15. We are conscious that even in the absence of statutory provision, normal rule is "no work no pay". In appropriate cases, a court of law may take into account all the facts in their entirety and pass an appropriate order in consonance with law. The principle of "no work no pay" would not be ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 35 - 2025:HHC:31473 attracted where the respondents were in fault in not considering the case of the appellant for promotion and not allowing the appellant to work on a post of Naib Subedar carrying higher pay scale. In the facts of the .
present case when the appellant was granted promotion w.e.f. 01.01.2000 with the ante-dated seniority from 01.08.1997 and maintaining his seniority along with his batchmates, it would be unjust to deny him higher pay and allowances in the promotional position of Naib Subedar."
9(iv-d).
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gowramma C. (Dead) by Legal Representatives versus Manager (Personnel), Hindustan Aeronautical Limited and another, (2022) 11 SCC 794, has mandated that in a situation, where an employee was denied the right to work at relevant time ; then, upon grant of retrospective promotion, such an employee cannot be denied the fruits due to him and said employee shall be entitled for all monetary benefits, in following terms:-
"13. The most important question is whether the employee is at fault in any manner. If the employee is not at all at fault and she was kept out ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 36 - 2025:HHC:31473 of work by reasons of the decision taken by the employer, then to deny the fruits of her being vindicated at the end of the day would be unfair to the employee. In such circumstances, no doubt, the question relating to .
alternative employment that the employee may have resorted to, becomes relevant. There is also the aspect of discretion which is exercised by the Court keeping in view the facts of each case. As we have already noticed, this is a case where apart from the charge of the employee having produced false caste certificate, there is no other charge. Therefore, we would think that interests of justice, in the facts of this, would be subserved, if we enhance the r back wages from 50% to 75% of the full back wages, which she was otherwise entitled. The appeals are partly allowed. The impugned judgments will stand modified and the respondents shall calculate the amount which would be equivalent to 75% of the back wages and disburse the amount remaining to be paid under this judgment within a period of six weeks from today to the additional appellants."
9(iv-e). While dealing with the issue as to whether an employee upon grant of retrospective promotion is entitled to service benefits and financial benefits has been answered by this Court in CWP No. 3185 of 2022, titled as Dina Nath & others versus ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 37 - 2025:HHC:31473 State of H.P. & Others, decided on 15.05.2023, by mandating the State Authorities to release all consequential benefits, including monetary benefits .
to an employee from the date it was due but denied and was subsequently granted to an employee, in the following terms:-
"4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that being senior to respondent No.6, petitioner No.1. Dina Nath was to be promoted on the date of which Roshan Lal, respondent No. 6, was promoted vide order dated 31.03.2022 r (Annexure P-4) and further, as now, claim of the petitioners has been found legal, just, valid and genuine and in place of respondent No.6, petitioner No.1 Dina Nath has been promoted, petitioner Dina Nath is also entitled for promotion with retrospective effect from the date from which his junior respondent No. 6, Roshan Lal, was promoted.
5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances we are of considered view that claim of the petitioner is genuine and valid and accordingly we direct to extend the benefits of promotion to petitioner Dina Nath with retrospective effect i.e. 31.03.2022 along with all consequential benefits including monetary benefits from 31.03.2022, the date from which his junior respondent No.6, Roshan Lal, ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 38 - 2025:HHC:31473 was promoted in his place. Needful be done on or before 30.06.2023."
9(iv-f). While dealing with a similar matter, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, In CWP No. 1319 .
of 2023 titled as Rakesh Kaplex versus State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 03.08.2023, after relying upon the judgment in case of Ramesh Kumar [supra], after negating the condition of "notional benefits" and benefits shall r to upon grant of retrospective promotion, all the service accrue including monetary benefits, for the reason, that an employee cannot be made to suffer without any fault attributable to him, in the following terms:-
"5(ii) In the facts of the case, admittedly the petitioner was not at fault for having not been promoted at the relevant time along with his juniors. Fault, if any, lay with the respondents. The pleaded stand of the respondents was that the petitioner was promoted vide order dated 06.03.2021, however, he failed to join under this order. But the fact is that the respondents have not been able to establish that the aforesaid promotion order dated 06.03.2021 was ever served upon the petitioner. The petitioner was due for promotion in ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 39 - 2025:HHC:31473 the year 2020 and his case was accordingly considered by the DPC that was convened in December, 2020 along with other incumbents. For want of his ACRs, petitioner was left out at that time. All throughout petitioner has .
been representing to the respondents for his promotion to the post of TGT from due date. Had he been aware of his promotion to the post of TGT under order dated 06.03.2021 as is contended by the respondents, there would have been no occasion for him to continue to represent to the respondents or to file this writ petition seeking his promotion as TGT. The order dated 06.03.2021, if issued, remained in office files of the respondents. It was never brought to the knowledge of the petitioner.
It never saw light of the day. This aspect stands duly established in view of various orders passed in this petition from time to time. It is for this reason that the respondents have now issued a fresh order dated 22.07.2023 promoting the petitioner as TGT retrospectively from 06.03.2021. Under the circumstances, petitioner is entitled for actual benefits of his retrospective promotion from 06.03.2021 and not notional. For the fault of the respondents, he cannot be made to suffer.
The petitioner in the given facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be denied financial benefits. Had he been promoted by the respondents in accordance with law at the relevant time; had he been issued promotion order at the ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 40 - 2025:HHC:31473 relevant time he would have served as TGT (N.M). Employer/ respondent cannot be allowed to take advantage of its wrong and the employee/petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the fault of the respondents/employer.
.
Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed.
The respondents are directed to release all due and admissible benefits on actual basis to the petitioner on account of his retrospective promotion to the post of TGT (N.M.) from 06.03.2021. This exercise be carried out by the respondents within four weeks from today."
9(iv-g). In a
similar fact-situation,
in CWP No.3276 of 2023 titled as Sanjay Kumar r this Court Versus State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 31.10.2023, mandated that upon grant of retrospective promotion, an eligible employee shall be entitled for actual monetary benefits which would have accrued in the normal course ; and the plea of "no work no pay"
was held to be not applicable.
9(iv-h). While dealing with validity of the condition of "notional benefits", this Court after quashing the said condition in CWPOA No 6977 of 2020, titled as Birbal versus State of Himachal Pradesh, decided ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 41 - 2025:HHC:31473 on 14.11.2024, has held as under ;
12(ii). Notional condition, contained in the orders dated 08.03.2019 [Annexure R-5] in promoting the petitioner as Supdt Gr-II w.e.f. 30.04.2011 but in treating .
the period w.e.f. 30.4.2011 to 2.10.2011 notional is uncalled for, for the reason, that the petitioner was eligible to be considered for promotion as Supdt Grade II on the basis of reservation, from amongst Scheduled Caste feeder category of Senior Assistant, against the vacancy of April, 2011 but was denied the consideration due to the fault or omission or inaction of the respondents at the relevant time and this benefit of promotion as Supdt r Gr-II was belatedly given on 03.10.2011 [Annexure R-4]. However, on realizing the mistake, the Respondent no 1 convened the Review DPC on 22.8.2014 after his retirement and thereafter extended the rightful benefit of consideration and resultant retrospective promotion as Supdt Gr-II 1 after about 5 years on 8.3.2019 w.e.f. 30.04.2011 [Annexure R-5], therefore, in these circumstances, once the petitioner was eligible and was willing and ready to work on promotional post of Supdt Gr-II but was denied this benefit without any fault attributable to petitioner therefore, upon grant of retrospective promotion from due date on 30.4.2011, then, condition of notional promotion in orders of retrospective promotion [Annexure R-5] and in depriving the petitioner of ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 42 - 2025:HHC:31473 actual monetary benefits i.e. the pay and allowances for the period 30.04.2011 to 02.10.2011 cannot sustain in the eyes of law; and secondly, the condition of notional promotion cannot operate so to permit respondents to take .
advantage of own wrongs and thirdly, this condition shall amount to victimizing or penalizing the petitioner for inaction, faults and wrongs of the respondents in not considering him for promotion from due date in April, 2011 which was rectified by Review DPC held on 22.8.2014 leading to the issuance of the retrospective promotion orders on 08.05.2019 [Annexure R-5]; and fourthly, the condition of notional promotion amounts to validating the inaction of Respondents in not considering petitioner for promotion from Senior Assistant to Superintendent Grade-II from due date on the basis of reservation roster and/applicable Rules in April 2011;
and fifthly, the condition of notional promotion is a camouflage for denying benefits when, no fault was attributed to petitioner; and sixthly, the condition of notional promotion results in visiting the petitioner with civil consequences but without giving a prior notice and without affording a personal hearing reveals unfairness and unreasonableness in State action; and seventhly, after grant of retrospective promotion as Superintendent Gr-II on 8.3.2019 w.e.f. 30.4.2011 [Annexure R-5], the petitioner had acquired a right to receive legal entitlements i.e. pay and allowances attached to the post of Supdt Gr-II ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 43 - 2025:HHC:31473 for the period from 30.4.2011 till 2.10.2011 [till the date of his promotion as Supdt Gr-II earlier on 30.10.2011] and once these legal entitlement come within the ambit of property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of .
India, then, deprivation of these legal entitlements without any authority of law and is impermissible in instant case; and eighthly, the Learned State Counsel, during the course of hearing contends that the condition of notional promotion and denial of monetary benefits was based on principle of 'no work no pay" is erroneous and unsustainable ; and ninthly, even the principle of "no work no pay" can neither be attracted nor is the same applicable in fact situation of instant case, where, though the petitioner was eligible but his fundamental right of consideration for promotion as Supdt Gr-II was denied without any fault attributable to him at the relevant time (April 2011) and such a right was restored belatedly by issuing the promotion orders on 8.3.2019 [Annexure R-5] and it was due to this, that the Respondents have deprived the petitioner of the right to work and to earn the pay and allowances, which would have been admissible to him in the normal course and lastly, the condition of notional promotion and the denial of pay and allowances from 30.4.2011 till 2.10.2011 after being granted retrospective promotion as Supdt Gr-II on 08.03.2019 [Annexure R-5] is contrary to the mandate of law of ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 44 - 2025:HHC:31473 the Hon'ble Supreme Court....."
In view of above discussion, the condition of notional benefits, contained in the order dated .
11.07.2017 [Annexure A-4 colly /Annexure R-1] in facts of instant case, is uncalled for, arbitrary and is dehors the mandate in Para 12 of the judgement dated 11.12.2014, Annexure A-1 [passed in CWP No.7214 of 2010]. Even declaration of law, ousts the applicability of principle of "no work no pay", as mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of K.V.L. Narasimha Rao, Ε.Κ. Bhaskaran Pillai, Ramesh Kumar, Gowramma C. (Dead) by Legal Representatives, which has been followed by this Court, in the cases of Dina Nath, Rakesh Kaplex, Sanjay Kumar and Birbal (supra), entitling an employee for all monetary benefits, accruing on account of retrospective promotion/ appointment from the date such rights and benefits were wrongfully denied but were given to others. Even the condition ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 45 - 2025:HHC:31473 of notional benefits, which tends to deny the actual monetary benefits to the petitioner as Constable w.e.f.
07.01.2011 to 17.04.2015, amounts to penalizing the .
petitioner for inaction-faults of the State Authorities.
Such a condition, which negates or restricts or takes away or curtails the mandate of "consequential benefits" contained in Judgement dated 11.12.2014 Annexure A-1, cannot be permitted to operate, so as to render the legal entitlement(s), including the salary-
monetary benefits, which accrue to the petitioner by virtue of his appointment as a Constable w.e.f.
07.01.2011, as given to his counterparts cannot be negated or rendered otiose, ineffective or nugatory by inserting a whimsical and arbitrary condition, just to defeat the mandate of the judgement. Deprivation of legal entitlements accruing therefrom is certainly an attempt to overreach the judgment and therefore, such a condition cannot sustain, in facts of instant case. Accordingly, the condition of notional benefits ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 46 - 2025:HHC:31473 contained in orders dated 11.07.2017 cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny and such condition is quashed and set-aside, being arbitrary, illegal, without .
authority of law, in facts of instant case.
CONTENTION OF STATE BASED ON FR 17 MISPLACED:
10. Based on Reply-Affidavit, Learned State Counsel has opposed the claim by placing reliance on Fundamental Rule 17.
The above contention is misconceived, in view of the fact, that FR 17, is neither applicable nor attracted in facts and circumstances of instant case. Even, FR-17 applies in an eventuality, where a person is appointed or promoted against a post and his right to salary begins from the date such person assumes the duties of a post. Fundamental Rule 17 does not foresee an eventuality, where a person was denied the right of consideration in terms of applicable norms and the resultant right to hold a post at relevant time, and this benefit ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 47 - 2025:HHC:31473 was granted by virtue of the judicial intervention retrospectively from due date.
10(i). Even a perusal of FR 17, negates the .
contention of the Learned State Counsel that the benefit of pay and allowances is not to be extended to a person who remains absent without any authority.
In the instant case, the petitioner had not remained absent, whereas in fact it is the State Authorities-
Respondents r have themselves kept the petitioner waiting for appointment and have deprived him of actual appointment as Constable against the reserved post meant for OBC-UR [w.e.f. 07.01.2011 to 17.04.2015 due to the wrong/incorrect application of reservation roster, which action of the state authorities was assailed by the petitioner in CWP No.7214 of 2010 and his right was vindicated in judgement passed on 11.12.2014, whereby, the appointment of Honey Kumar and Mahender Singh [Respondents 4 & 5 in earlier writ petition] was quashed and set aside.
::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS - 48 - 2025:HHC:31473
Accordingly, the State action in wrongly applying
FR 17, so as to deprive the petitioner of the right to work and right to earn salary, pay and allowances, .
without any fault attributable to the petitioner, who had never remained absent is factually incorrect and therefore, the contention of the Learned State Counsel, is devoid of any merit and is turned down.
In this backdrop, once the r petitioner was ready and willing to work but he was denied the appointment and the resultant right to work and the right to earn salary-pay and allowances, and once these "legal entitlements accrue from an appointment and are attached to a post" fall within the ambit of property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, then, deprivation of such legal entitlement, "salary", merely by imposing a condition in the orders dated 11.07.2017 being without authority of law cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny. Even ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 49 - 2025:HHC:31473 the plea of "no work no pay" raised by the Learned State Counsel is neither attracted nor applicable in fact-situation of this case, when, petitioner was .
ready and willing to work but was deprived of consideration and resultant appointment and right to work alike his counterpart-juniors. Moreover the deprivation of monetary benefits is contrary to the mandate of law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of K V L Narsimha Rao, E K Bhaskaran Pillai, Ramesh Kumar Sharma, Gowramma C and the judgments of this Court referred to above. Even deprivation of salary, including the pay and allowances visits the petitioner with civil consequences and such an adversial action cannot be resorted to arbitrarily by giving complete go-bye to minimum requirements of fairness and reasonableness, which were blatantly violated, in the instant case. Thus, the condition of notional benefits inserted in orders dated 11.07.2017 [Annexure A-4/Annexure R-I] denying actual monetary ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 50 - 2025:HHC:31473 benefits to petitioner as Constable for the period from 07.01.2011 to 17.04.2015 is declared inoperative for all intends and purposes.
.
DENIAL OF HIGHER PAY SCALE DISCRIMINATORY :
11. Based on the Reply-Affidavit, Learned State Counsel contends that the benefit of higher pay scale was not granted to the petitioner, as he did service not fulfill and r the the criteria higher pay of two scale years will be regular given after 8 years of regular service in terms of notification dated 14.01.2015.
11(i). First part of the above plea is devoid of any merit, for the reason, that State Authorities in order dated 11.07.2017 [Annexure A-4 Colly/Annexure R-1] has treated the petitioner to have been appointed as a Constable, after vindication of his rights in terms of judgement dated 11.12.2014, Annexure A-1 w.e.f. 07.01.2011 at par with his counterpart Constables, who had participated in selection process ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 51 - 2025:HHC:31473 along with him in the year 2010 and were appointed on 7.1.2011. The State Authorities issued the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services Revised Pay Rules .
dated 24.09.2012, entitling the existing employees for pay scales as per the Schedule notified under these rules. Deriving strength from the Revised Pay Rules dated 24.09.2012, the State Authorities notified the Schedule for Constables on 28.09.2012 giving the higher r pay scale of Rs.10300-34800+3200 Grade Pay on completion of two years of regular service w.e.f. 07.01.2013, which is clear from the service book of Arun Kumar vide Annexure A-7 [page 35 of paper book], therefore, the action of State Authorities in denying the higher pay scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 07.01.2013, as given to others is discriminatory. Denial of higher scale to the petitioner when, given to others amounts to treating "equals to unequal". Denial of higher scale to the petitioner amounts to negating, curtailing, ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 52 - 2025:HHC:31473 restricting or in rendering the directions contained Para 12 of judgement dated 11.12.2014, Annexure A-1 for giving "consequential benefits" accruing from his .
appointment as Constable from the date he was denied appointment, which was given to one Sh.
Honey Kumar, against OBC-UR. Even, the judgement dated 11.12.2014, vindicating the rights of petitioner had attained finality. Based on the judgement dated 11.12.2014, the State Authorities have declared the petitioner to be the holder of post of OBC-UR as Constable from the date Shri Honey Kumar was appointed on 11.07.2017 [Annexure A-4/Annexure R-I] w.e.f. 7.1.2011 then, it does not lie in the mouth of State Authorities-Respondents to accept the factum of conferment of appointment on regular basis w.e.f.
07.01.2011 but in not granting/extending other service benefits, including the higher pay scale of Rs. 10300-34800 + 3200 Grade Pay on completion of two years regular/deemed regular service as given ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 53 - 2025:HHC:31473 to others, including one Sh Arun Kumar from the date of completion of two years regular service vide order dated 08.03.2013 w.e.f. 07.01.2013, so as .
to overreach the directions contained in judgement is ex-facie contemptuous. Entitling the petitioner to be a rightful holder of a post of Constable w.e.f.
07.01.2011 encompasses accrual and admissibility of all service benefits flowing therefrom, including the grant of higher pay scale also. Requirement of regular service in the Rules dated 24.09.2012 and its Schedule dated 28.09.2012, giving the higher pay scales to Constables cannot imply actual regular service, in peculiar facts of instant case. Grant of retrospective appointment as Constable on regular basis w.e.f. 07.01.2011 equates the petitioner with Honey Kumar [as in Annexure A-4/Annexure R-1] and Arun Kumar [as in Annexure A-7] and upon grant of similarity-parity, the petitioner is to be treated to have rendered regular service and/or deemed regular ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 54 - 2025:HHC:31473 service, flowing from retrospective regular appointment by virtue of Court orders. Action of State Authorities by giving an interpretation that the petitioner was .
required to render actual regular service of two years, after joining as Constable on 18.04.2015 shall render the intent/spirit and the directions passed by this Court in judgment dated 11.12.2014 [Annexure A-1] mandating to grant all consequential benefits as otiose and nugatory and such an action cannot be permitted to sustain, in peculiar fact situation of instant case.
11(ii). While dealing with the concept of "regular service", after grant of retrospective appointment from a notional date, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has outlined in the case of K. Madhavan and another versus Union of India and others, (1987) 4 SCC 566 that the expression "regular service" cannot exclude retrospective notional regular service but the expression "regular service" can only exclude ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 55 - 2025:HHC:31473 "service, which is purely temporary or adhoc and is not on regular basis", in the following terms:
"The 1975 Rules which are relevant for the purpose do not explain what is meant by .
the expression on a regular basis. The expression has created some ambiguity in the eligibility clause giving rise to this controversy. There can be no doubt that when a person is appointed to a post against a permanent vacancy on probation, his appointment is on a regular basis, but when a person is appointed to a post on a purely temporary or on an ad hoc basis, the appointment is not on a regular basis. The expression 'on a regular basis' in the 1975 Rules cannot, in our r opinion, be interpreted to mean as on absorption in the CBI as SP. The general principle is that in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, the length of service from the date appointment to a post should be taken into consideration for the purpose of either seniority in that post or eligibility for the higher post. As no explanation has been given in the 1975 Rules of the said expression, we do not think it desirable to deviate from the established principle of computing the length of service for the purpose of seniority or eligibility for the higher post from the date of appointment. In our view, therefore, the expression 'on a regular basis' would mean the appointment to the post on a regular basis in contradiction to appointment on ad hoc or stop-gap or purely temporary basis.::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 56 - 2025:HHC:31473
11(iii). Likewise, the interpretation of the expression
"regular service" came up for adjudication before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Union of India
.
and others versus K. B. Rajoria, (2000) 3 SCC 562, mandating that the word "regular service" does not mean "actual service". The expression "regular service"
would mean the appointment to a post on regular in contradistinction to appointment on ad-hoc or stopgap or purely temporary basis. Grant of retrospective notional appointment/promotion cannot exclude the period of such regular service which does not mean actual physical service for the purpose of granting promotion or other service benefits.
8. Second, the High Court erred in not dismissing the writ petition on the ground of the obvious lack of locus standi in Rajoria who had never been granted notional promotion because the DPC was not in fact held for reasons which the High Court felt were unavoidable. Rajorias case was built on hypothetical situations, and his position could not reasonably be equated with that of Krishnamoorti.
9. Third, the High Court erred in ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 57 - 2025:HHC:31473 construing the words regular service in the grade as actual physical service. If that were so, then an ad hoc appointee who actually serves in the post could also claim to be qualified to be considered for the post of Director General. The .
High Court itself held that ad hoc service rendered by any of the parties would not count towards eligibility.
11. The word regular therefore does not mean actual and the first question the High Court should have considered was whether the appointment of Krishnamoorti was regular and in accordance with the Rules or was it irregular in the sense that it was contrary to any principle of law.
20. In the context of this case, the High Court erred in equating the words regular service with actual experience relying on the decision in Union of India and others V. M. Bhaskar and Others 1996 (4) SCC 416. In that case the eligibility criteria expressly was of completion of 2 years experience in Grade II. The case Is therefore entirely distinguishable.
21. The notional promotion was given to Krishnamoorti to right the wrong that had been done to him by his supersession on 22nd February, 1995. If Krishnamoorti is denied the right to be considered for promotion to the post of Director General on the basis of such notional promotion, particularly when the relevant provisions so provide, it would result ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 58 - 2025:HHC:31473 in perpetuating the wrong done to him. That is exactly what the High Court has done.
In the light of the factual matrix in .
instant case and the mandate of law in the case of K. Madhavan and K. B. Rajoria [supra], after grant of retrospective notional appointment as a Constable on regular basis, the entire service from 07.01.2011 which was a regular service is to be counted for purpose of granting higher pay scale after completion of 2 years' service. The interpretation sought to be asserted by the State Authorities that the expression "regular service" should mean "actual physical service" would amount to perpetuating the wrong done by State Authorities to the petitioner.
Even this would amount to obliterating the regular service from 07.01.2011 to 17.04.2015, by divesting him of the service benefits including higher pay scale on the basis of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services [Category/Post-wise Revised Pay] Rules, 2012 dated ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 59 - 2025:HHC:31473 24.09.2012 and Notification dated 28.09.2012. Denial of the higher pay scale amounts to depriving the petitioner of the higher pay fixation by giving a .
complete go-bye to the principles of natural justice.
Moreover, admissibility of revised pay scales accrues from the incumbency of a government servant or the date from which a person-employee becomes the holder of a post. The right of petitioner for revised /higher pay in terms of 2012 Rules and Schedule notified thereunder accrues to an existing government servant, who is in Government service on or before commencement of these Rules. In this backdrop, a perusal of the order dated 11.07.2017, Annexure A-4/Annexure R-1, treats the petitioner to be in Government service and recognizes him to be the holder of a post as Constable w.e.f. 07.01.2011 onwards. Moreover, the service w.e.f. 07.01.2011 to 17.04.2015 cannot be obliterated or wiped out so as to overreach the Judgement [Para 12 dated ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 60 - 2025:HHC:31473 11.12.2014]. "Regular service cannot imply actual or physical service". The expression "regular service"
can be understood to be service on a sanctioned .
post, upon due selection in a regular pay scale with increments, which is countable for seniority and other service benefits. It is only the service rendered on fixed salary or is a service rendered on contractual, adhoc or temporary, etc. which is not countable for service benefits, unless the rules provide for counting such service also. In these circumstances, the petitioner is held entitled for higher pay scale of Rs. 10300-34800+3200 GP from the date of completion of two years of regular service [deemed regular service] which flows from the Judgement Annexure A-1 w.e.f. 07.01.2013 as given to other similarly placed incumbents-counterparts, namely Honey Kumar, Mahender Singh and Arun Kumar [as in Annexure A-7] with all benefits.
12. Second part of the contention that as ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 61 - 2025:HHC:31473 per notification dated 14.01.2015, [Taken on Record] the petitioner is required to render regular service of 8 years for grant of higher pay scale is fallacious, .
for the reason, that Notification dated 14.01.2015, is not applicable, in instant case. The rights acquired by the petitioner in terms of the Notification dated 28.09.2012 [Taken on Record] cannot be either taken away or curtailed or negated on the basis of the Notification dated 14.01.2015. Once the benefit of higher pay scale stands released to other similarly placed Constables, after 2 years regular service w.e.f.
07.01.2013 then, this Court sees no reason, as to why the petitioner should be singled out, discriminated and denied the similar benefits. Substitution of the Notification dated 28.09.2012 by way of Notification dated 14.1.2015 cannot come in the way of the petitioner, who alike other counterparts [namely, Shri Honey Kumar and Shri Arun Kumar Constables] so as to curtail or take away acquired right for ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 62 - 2025:HHC:31473 higher pay scales after two years of regular service w.e.f. 07.01.2013. Even annulment of the Notification dated 28.09.2012 on 14.01.2015 cannot operate .
retrospectively, so as to take away the accrued and vested rights in terms of Notification dated 28.09.2012.
The accrued rights and benefits cannot be taken be away or denied by giving effect to Notification dated 14.01.2015, so as to deprive the petitioner of the higher pay scale of Rs. 10300-34800+3200 GP, as a Constable w.e.f. 07.01.2013 from the date such benefit has been granted to other similarly placed incumbents. In these circumstances, the denial of higher pay scale on completion of two years service w.e.f. 07.01.2013 in terms of the Notification dated 28.09.2012 to the petitioner in the same manner it has been granted to other similarly placed incumbents-juniors speaks volumes of arbitrariness, is discriminatory and such denial cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny and the same is ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 63 - 2025:HHC:31473 accordingly set-aside.
ANAMOLY IN PAY OF PETITIONER DISCRIMINATORY WHEN GRANTED TO OTHERS:
13. Perusal of salary statement, Annexure A-6 .
of the petitioner of February 2017, reveals that in February, 2017, the basic pay of the petitioner was Rs.6150 whereas, the basic pay of one Arun Kumar [as in Annexure A-7] who was appointed as Constable from the same selection w.e.f. 07.01.2011 was Rs.13500/- w.e.f. 08.03.2013. The anomaly in pay of the petitioner vis-à-vis Arun Kumar who are similarly placed in all respects is writ large. Equals cannot be treated unequally. Violation of Article 14, 16 and Article 39 of the Constitution of India is writ large, which cannot be permitted to operate.
Accordingly, in order to ensure parity in pay between similarly placed incumbents and to ensure the implementation of the judgment dated 11.12.2014 [Annexure A-1], in its true perspective, when, the Division Bench of this Court vide orders passed in ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 64 - 2025:HHC:31473 Execution Petition No 73 of 2017 on 08.08.2017, Annexure A-5, and therefore, the claim of petitioner for parity in pay with similar incumbents, namely .
Arun Kumar as in Annexure A-1, as Constables at Rs.13500/- w.e.f. 08.03.2013 or such like pay has merit and the same is allowed accordingly.
CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS:-
14. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petition is allowed, in the following terms:
(i). Condition of notional benefits in the order dated 11/15.07.2017, [Annexure A-4 (colly)/Annexure R-1] is quashed and set aside;
(ii). Consequent upon quashing of condition of notional benefits in Annexure A-1, the State Authorities are mandated to grant all consequential and to release all monetary benefits to the petitioner as a Constable for the period w.e.f 07.01.2013 to 17.04.2015 [prior to actual joining on 18.04.2015]; and the benefits thereafter ;
(iii). State Authorities are directed to release ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 65 - 2025:HHC:31473 higher pay scale of Rs.10300-34800+ 3200 Grade Pay to the petitioner from date of completion of two years regular service as Constable w.e.f. 07.01.2013;
.
as granted to similarly placed incumbents namely Arun Kumar [in Annexure A-7] and others, including Honey Kumar and Mahender Singh with all consequential benefits, with all past arrears;
(iv). State Authorities are directed to ensure implementation of the directions of "all consequential benefits" in terms of Para r 12 of the judgment dated 11.12.2014, [Annexure A-1] in CWP No.7214 of 2010 and the directions passed herein, with all consequential and all monetary benefits within a period of six weeks from today;
(v). Failure to comply with the directions contained hereinabove, shall entitled the petitioner for interest @ 6% per annum after expiring of six weeks in direction no (iv) above;
(vi). Parties to bear respective costs.
In aforesaid terms, the instant petition and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS
- 66 - 2025:HHC:31473 shall also stand disposed of, accordingly.
(Ranjan Sharma) Judge .
September 12, 2025
(himani)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2025 21:24:31 :::CIS