Daljeet Singh Verma & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

It is in this background, that the case of the petitioners is that once Assistant Librarians have been granted UGC Scale of Rs.15600-39100+6000 Grade Pay, then, the petitioners being similarly placed Assistant Librarians, upon regularization in the years 2015 and 2016 are entitled for similar UGC pay scale, in terms of the judgment(s), in the cases of Madan Lal Tomar and V.D. Saraswati, as referred to above. STAND OF RESPONDENTS-STATE AFFIDAVIT: IN REPLY-

#3. Upon issuance of notice, the Respondents have filed a Reply-Affidavit dated 02.12.2022. In Para 3 of Reply-Affidavit, it is averred that the Government ( 2025:HHC:32821 ) repealed the Recruitment and Promotion Rules dated - 4 -

24.12.1973 for the posts of Assistant Librarian and New Rules were notified in July, 2010, i.e. Himachal Pradesh Higher Education Department, Assistant Librarian [Class-III, Non-Gazetted] Rules. Reply-Affidavit stated that the petitioners were regularized in the years 2015 & 2016 and therefore, they were to be governed by Rules of 2010 and not by the Rules of 1973 and the UGC pay scales. Reply-Affidavit, stated that benefit of the judgments, in the cases of Madan Lal Tomar [CWP(T) No. 6018 of 2008] and V.D. Saraswati and others [LPA No. 146 of 2009] were given to Assistant Librarians, as a personal measure, who were appointed under the Rules of 1973, on regular basis and since the petitioners, were regularized in the years 2015 & 2016, therefore, the petitioners are to be granted the pay scales, in terms of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of Assistant Librarian, Class-III, Non-Gazetted notified in July, 2010 and not as per the UGC pay ( 2025:HHC:32821 ) - 5 - scales given to others, under the Rules of 1973. REBUTTAL BY PETITIONERS IN REJOINDER:

#4. In rejoinder, the petitioners countered the stand taken by the respondents in Reply-Affidavit and averred that the Assistant Librarians who were governed by the judgments in the cases of Madan Lal Tomar and V.D. Saraswati were similarly placed to that of the petitioners herein and all are performing similar work, job, duties and functions then, the petitioners are also entitled to parity in pay scales by extending the UGC pay scale, as given to Madan Lal Tomar and V.D. Saraswati and to many other Assistant Librarians, by the Respondent-State. It is averred that mere issuance of the New Rules of 2010, cannot be made basis for prescribing two pay scales [UGC and New UGC Scales] within one homogeneous class of Assistant Librarians. Mere date of regularization cannot form basis for giving two pay scales in lieu of the work, job, duties, functions, qualifications and even the service rendered by the ( 2025:HHC:32821 ) petitioners, as Assistant Librarians, is akin in all - 6 - respects to the service rendered as Assistant Librarians, who were given the UGC scales by the Respondent-State, in terms of aforesaid judgments, Learned Counsel submits that denial of UGC scale to petitioners amounts to hostile discrimination. He further submits that the issue as to whether the Assistant Librarians, alike petitioners in instant case, who were regularized after the issuance of the New Rules of Assistant Librarians on 12.07.2010, can be discriminated and denied UGC pay scales, as has been given to other similarly situated Assistant Librarians, stands answered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in CWPOA No.3096 of 2019, titled Rakesh Kumar and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another and other connected matters, decided on 13.10.2022, Annexure P-8, and after dismissal of LPA No. 217 of 2023 on 01.12.2023, judgment, in the case of Rakesh Kumar (supra), also stands implemented by the State Authorities. ( 2025:HHC:32821 ) - 7 -

#5. Heard, Mr. Vikas Rajput, Learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Gobind Korla, Learned Additional Advocate General, the Respondents and have gone through the material on record. ANALYSIS:

#6. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances, the Statutory Rules and the mandate contained in the judgements in the cases of Madan Lal Tomar and V.D. Saraswati [LPA No.146 of 2009], which stand reinforced in the case of Rakesh Kumar and implemented also; therefore, the claim of the petitioners for granting them the pay scale, as Assistant Librarians of Rs.10300-34800 with Rs.3600 GP and the UGC pay scale of. Rs.15600-39100+6000 GP as granted to other Assistant Librarians in LPA No. 146 of 2009 [supra], holding same post, same designation and performing same work, job, functions, qualifications, etc. carries weight, and the same is accepted for the following reasons. ( 2025:HHC:32821 ) - 8 - 6(i). It is not in dispute, that the UGC pay scale was granted to the Assistant Librarians in terms of the judgments in the case of Madan Lal Tomar and V.D. Saraswati (supra) then the petitioners being similarly placed cannot be denied similar pay scales, when the aforesaid judgements stand implemented also. 6(ii). The question, as to whether the Assistant Librarians, who were regularized as Assistant Librarians in the years 2015 & 2016, after promulgation of the New Recruitment and Promotion Rules of Assistant Librarians on 12.07.2010, could be denied the UGC pay scale, as given to others Assistant Librarians stands answered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, on 13.10.2022 in CWPOA No.3096 of 2019, titled as Rakesh Kumar & others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another in the following terms:- “7. The question, which has fallen for adjudication before this Court is, “whether the petitioners are governed by new Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified on 12.7.2010, Annexure P-11 and whether they can be ( 2025:HHC:32821 ) - 9 - denied UGC pay scales which are being paid to other similarly situate persons i.e. Assistant Librarians, on the ground that their services were regularized in 2015-16, after promulgation of Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified on 12.7.2010? or ”whether the petitioners belong to same cadre of Assistant Librarians, who have been extended benefit of UGC scale pursuant to judgment in LPA No. 146 of 2017 titled state v. V.D.Saraswati and others hence entitled to same pay scales as granted to their counterparts in aforesaid appeal”

#14. After promulgation of new rules, Department appointed 77 Assistant Librarians on contact basis on the recommendations of Staff Himachal Selection 27.10.2010 (179 of paper book). In the aforesaid selection process, petitioners also came to be appointed on contact basis on the recommendations of the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Staff Selection Board. Pradesh Board Subordinate

#15. Rule 2 of Recruitment and Promotion Rules dated 12.7.2010 annexure P-2 available at page 92 reads as under: These rules shall come into force from the date of the publication in the Rajpatra Himachal Pradesh.

#16. It is apparent from the reading of the aforesaid rule that these rules had prospective operation and did not affect selection process initiated prior to promulgation of these Rules. Otherwise previous recruitment process, which was being conducted on the basis of qualification prescribed in old rules, would have been cancelled because essential qualification was changed in new rules. In light of essential qualification in new rules, candidates, being considered under old rules, would have been rendered ineligible.

#17. Vide order dated 6.7.2015 (Annexure P-4) Assistant Librarians were regularized in the pay scale of Rs.5910-20200+2400 grade pay. Vide another Notification dated 27.4.2016 (Annexure P-3), 16 Assistant Librarians were ( 2025:HHC:32821 ) - 10 - also regularized in same pay scale.

#18. Though the petitioners here in were considered for appointment as Assistant Librarians on batch wise basis pursuant to advertisements dated 10.10.2002 and 17.2.2009 (Annexure P- 1 and P-2) issued by Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Staff Selection Board, but since they came to be appointed on contract basis after promulgation of new Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified on 12.7.2010, they have been denied UGC pay scales being paid to the Assistant Librarians, who were appointed prior to the year 2008. Case of the respondent- State is that since the petitioners came to be appointed Recruitment and Promotion Rules, they are not entitled to UGC pay scales, which was only paid in the case of Assistant Librarians who were appointed prior to promulgation of new Recruitment and Promotion Rules, wherein essential qualification was completely changed vis-à-vis rules of 1973, however, there appears to be no merit in the said claim of the respondents, because if the recruitment of petitioner, is/was to be governed under new rules, they could not have been appointed in the year 2010. All the petitioners were regularized as Assistant Librarians vide orders dated 6.7.2015/27.4.2016 Annexure P-4/P-3 in the pay scale of Rs.5910- 20200+2400 grade pay. promulgation

#19. Even the policy of regularization clearly provides regularization would be strictly on the basis of seniority subject to the condition that eligibility criteria etc. prescribed in the recruitment and promotion rules for the post have been observed at the time of their initial recruitment on contract. having

#20. It is not the case of the respondents, that the petitioners were requisite qualification in terms of Recruitment and Promotion Rules at the time of their initial appointment on contract basis. No doubt, after promulgation essential Promotion qualification for the post of Assistant Librarian of new Recruitment 12.7.2010, Rules ( 2025:HHC:32821 ) - 11 - came to be changed, but since it stands established on record that the petitioners herein alongwith other similarly situate persons were appointed as Assistant Librarians on contract basis on the basis of advertisement issued by Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Staff Selection Board 10.10.2002, and second advertisement dated 17.10.2009, was initiated by Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Staff Selection Board Hamirpur under old rules, notified on 24.5.2000, prescribing therein qualifications as possessed by the petitioners, regularization of the petitioner after promulgation of new Recruitment and Promotion Rules, would not disentitle them from claiming benefit of UGC pay scales, which was being paid to their counterparts appointed as Assistant Librarians in the year 2008 or prior to that.

#21. In the present case, entire selection process was never held in abeyance rather, completed as per same process. Some of the petitioners were appointed on 19.10.2009 on batch wise basis on contract basis before promulgation of new rules on 12.7.2010, Otherwise also, petitioners were appointed after promulgation new rules. It is clear that Government never intended to cancel the earlier recruitment process on the ground that new rules are to be framed and in that event, the recruitment process earlier initiated would have been abandoned. Interestingly, in the case at hand, even regularization policy (Annexure P13) provided that the regularization would be as per eligibility provided in the recruitment and promotion rules at the time of initial appointment. Vide Notification dated 31.8.2020 following was notified: (Annexure RJ2), “The Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to order to convert the 771 vacant posts of Assistant Librarians into the cadre of Junior Office Assistant (Library) as per Annexure- A&B and remaining 252 filled up posts of Assistant Librarians be declared as dying cadre as per Annexure-C & D, which will stand abolished as and when fall vacant.” ( 2025:HHC:32821 ) - 12 -

#22. After promulgation of new Recruitment and Promotion Rules vide Notification dated 12.7.2010, no recruitment has been made to the post of Assistant Librarians and cadre has been declared as dying cadre. As of today there are no Assistant Librarians recruited as per new rule, 17.9.2009, Annexure P-2, rather, all the in cadre of Assistant Librarians stand recruited under old rules notified on 24.5.2000, meaning thereby that the petitioners and other Assistant Librarians whether appointed on regular basis before or after promulgation of Recruitment Promotion Rules, 12.7.2010 are entitled to be treated at par with their counterparts i.e. Assistant Librarians appointed before 12.7.2010. incumbents

#23. In this regard reliance is placed upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Mehendran & others v. State of Karnataka, (1990) 1 SCC 411, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held that when Rules regarding qualification for appointment are amended during continuation of process of selection and process is subsequently completed under the old Rules, the same cannot be governed by the new Rules in the absence of provision enforcing the amended rules with retrospective effect and the Rules which are prospective in nature cannot rights of impair take away or candidates selected under the old rules. The Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: “5. It is well-settled rule of that every statute or construction statutory Rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication to have retrospective effect. Unless there are words in the statute or in the Rules showing the intention to affect existing rights the Rule must be held to be prospective. If a Rule is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be construed as prospective only. In the absence of any express provision or necessary intendment the rule cannot ( 2025:HHC:32821 ) - 13 - giving provision be given retrospective effect except in matter of procedure. The amending Rule of 1987 does not contain any express amendment retrospective effect nor there is anything therein showing the necessary intend-ment for enforcing the Rule with retrospective effect. Since the amending Rule was not retrospective, it could not adversely affect the right of those candidates who were qualified for selection and appointment on the date they applied for the post, moreover as the process of selection had already commenced when the amending Rules came into force. The amended Rule could not affect the existing rights of those candidates who were being considered possessed the requisite qualifications prescribed by the Rules before its amendment moreover construction of amending Rules should be made in a reasonable manner unnecessary hardship to those who have no control over the subject matter.” selection as

#24. It is clearly apparent from the record that the petitioners belong to common cadre of Assistant Librarians, as such, stand of the respondents that since the petitioners were regularized after promulgation of new rules, they are governed by said rules, is factually incorrect and legally unsustainable. Cutoff date of new Recruitment and Promotion i.e. 17.2.2009, cannot provide Rules justification to the respondents to treat them differently the Assistant Librarians of same cadre appointed before promulgation of new Recruitment and Promotion Rules.

#25. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are holding same post in same cadre as has been held by their counterparts, who were the post of Assistant appointed Librarians before regular 12.7.2010. Since, both the categories are identical duties and are discharging ( 2025:HHC:32821 ) - 14 - against incumbent transferable irrespective of date of appointment and are also included in same seniority, action of the respondent State to deny UGC pay scales to the category of the petitioners on the ground that their services were regularized Recruitment and Promotion Rules, permitted to sustain would amount to discrimination vis-à-vis their counterparts. Even on the principle of equal pay for equal work, p.s. are entitled to equal pay at par with their counterparts who were regularized or appointed before 12.7.2010. promulgation

#26. Division Bench of this court while dealing with the case of Assistant Librarians of the same department has already held on 23.12.2015 in State v. V.D. Saraswati LPA No.146 of 2009 that members of same cadre cannot be given different pay scales. returned “The question is- whether in the given circumstances, the State can now question the judgments made by the learned Single Judge by the medium of Letters Patent Appeal at hand? The answer is in the negative for the simple reason that, admittedly, the principle has been discussed and the findings State Administrative Tribunal, the writ Court and the Appellate Court that all the Assistant Librarians, constituted one homogeneous class, which findings stand upheld by the Apex court. Virtually, the State, by the medium of instant appeals have questioned the foundation of reasoning on the basis of which the earlier judgment referred to above were made which is not possible?

#27. This court in Uttem Singh v. State of H.P., CWP No. 1640 of 2017, decided on 17.9.2019 has traced the entire history of the dispute relating to the pay scale of the Assistant Librarians and has held as under: “17. Since question stands duly settled that there is only one cadre of ( 2025:HHC:32821 ) - 15 - Librarians Assistant Schools/Colleges/Public Libraries and Community Centre Libraries and there cannot be any discrimination in higher pay scale of Rs. 300-600...”

#28. This court in Sanjeev Kumar Mahajan and others v. State of H.P. and another, CWP(T) No. 4063 of 2008, has held as under: “The respondents have divided the homogeneous class of Auditors without there being any rationale. There is no intelligible differentia so as to distinguish the Auditors, who have put in 5 years of service or were appointed on or before 23.7.1990 and appointed after 23.7.1990. There is also no nexus sought to be achieved by depriving the petitioners of their legitimate right to get the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200/-at par the colleagues who were working in the same department and also in the local Audit Department and Department of Food and Civil Supplies. In case they had been the Local Audit working with Department, they would have got the Rs.1800-3200/- irrespective respondents appointment. cannot treat equals as unequals.” The

#29. In yet another case titled Balbir Singh Thakur and another v. State of H.P. and another, CWP(T) No. 6007 of 2008, decided on 6.8.2010, this court has held that there cannot be two pay scales for the same cadre of Block Development Officers on the basis of cut-off date.

#30. In Kulbir Singh Rana and another v. State of H.P. and another, CWP No. 3660 of 2012 decided on 20.9.2012, this court held in para- 6 that while following the law laid down in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Mahajan supra, it has been already held in Balbir Singh’s case that there cannot be two pay scales for the same cadre of Block Development Officers ( 2025:HHC:32821 ) - 16 - similarly on the basis of cut-off date. Thereafter in para Nos. 16 and 17, this court held that petitioners being situate and discharging similar duties and working in the same cadre could not be given different treatment. This judgment was affirmed by Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 2.7.2013 in LPA No. 148 of 2013, titled State of H.P. and another v. Kulbir Singh Rana and others, wherein, this court held as under: “2. The learned single Judge, besides applying the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the case of similarly placed persons have also recorded as of fact that the petitioners are admittedly similarly situate and discharging similar duties, but have been placed in different pay scales merely on the basis of their date of appointment. In other words, the respondents ought to succeed even on the principle of equal tangible explanation has been offered as to how the date of appointment would become relevant for fixing different pay scale to employee discharging the same work in the same department. Hence, appeal is dismissed.” for equal work. No

#31. In view of detailed discussion made herein above, as well as law taken into consideration, it is quite apparent that the petitioners belong to one homogenous class of Assistant Librarians discharging same duties as are being discharged by other incumbents appointed on the basis of same Recruitment and Promotion Rules but yet they are being subjected to hostile discrimination on account of their having been regularized after promulgation of new rules. Impugned rejection of their claim is liable to be set aside and respondents are liable to be directed to treat the petitioners at par with their counterparts /Assistant Librarians in LPA No. 146 of 2009.

#32. Consequently in view of above, the present petitions are allowed. Impugned rejection ( 2025:HHC:32821 ) - 17 - of the claim of the petitioners is set aside and respondents are directed to treat the petitioners herein at par with the persons /Assistant Librarians in LPA No. 146 of 2009 and grant them the same pay scale/UGC pay scales and allowances, alongwith all consequential benefits from due date.” 6(iii). Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the judgment dated 13.10.2022 in the case of Rakesh Kumar (Supra) in LPA No. 217 of 2023, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Rakesh Kumar, which was dismissed on 01.12.2023. After dismissal of SLP, the judgement stands implemented also. 6(iv). Once the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Librarians in the year 2009, on contract basis and were regularized in the years 2015 & 2016 then, the action of Respondents in giving a lower pay scale of Rs 5910-20200+2400 GP, when, other similarly placed Assistant Librarians were granted the pay scale of Rs.10310-34800+3600 GP and thereafter the UGC pay- scale of Rs.15600-39100+6000 GP, in terms of the judgement in the case of V.D. Saraswati [ LPA No.146 of 2009 ] but the action of denying the ( 2025:HHC:32821 ) higher/revised pay scale/UGC Scale to the petitioners, - 18 - merely, on the ground, that the petitioners were regularized in the years 2015 & 2016, after the promulgation of the New Rules of 2010 is impermissible. Factum of regularization cannot be made the sole basis for carving out two different classes, within one homogeneous class of Assistant Librarian who were performing the same work, duties, job and functions holding inter-transferable posts, as Assistant Librarians. Nothing has been placed on record, to prove that grant of different pay scales to Assistant Librarians [i.e. UGC pay scale to some and non-UGC pay scales to others] is based on a valid and legally tenable classification having a reasonable nexus sought to be achieved by such classification. In absence of any such material on record, the petitioners cannot be put to a hostile discrimination, between one homogeneous class of Assistant Librarians. Even the respondents cannot prescribe two different pay scales to members of one ( 2025:HHC:32821 ) cadre-class of Assistant Librarians. Action of the - 19 - respondents amounts to treating equals as unequal. Granting two pay scales, between a homogeneous class of Assistant Librarians, is impermissible, on facts of instant case. The stand of the State Authorities in giving different pay scales cannot be permitted to operate and the impugned action is set aside. Moreover, once the New Rules for post of Assistant Librarians were notified on 12.07.2010, by repealing the earlier Rules notified on 24.12.1973 for the post of Assistant Librarians and New Rules dated

12.07.2010 came into force from the date of publication in the gazette on 12.07.2010 and were prospective in nature. The New Rules of 2010 could not apply retrospectively so as to put the petitioners to a disadvantageous position, who had already been appointed, after due selection in the year 2009. Moreover, once the petitioners were appointed the year 2009, i.e. prior to the promulgation of New ( 2025:HHC:32821 ) - 20 - Rules on 12.07.2010, then, the conditions of service i.e. pay scale etc. were to be governed by the 1973 Rules. Even regularization policy provided that the regularization has to be as per the eligibility criteria in force on the date of initial recruitment on contract. Since the qualifications were altogether changed in New Rules of 2010 then, the changed eligibility and changed conditions of service, including the new pay scale of Rs.5910-20200+2400 GP was only to be applied, to incumbents whose selection process had commenced, by issuing the advertisement on or after the date of enforcement of New Rules on 12.07.2010. Action of applying the New Rules of 2010 to the selection which had already been culminated in the year 2009 [as in case of petitioners] cannot be permitted, which shall tantamount to giving retrospective effect to Rules of 2010 and shall result in taking away the vested rights acquired under the Rules of 1973, which only provided for recruitment on regular basis, in regular ( 2025:HHC:32821 ) pay scale. The contractual mode of recruitment was - 21 - recognized in the New Rules on 12.07.2010 and prior to this, the recruitments were to be made on regular basis, in regular pay scale. Once the Assistant Librarians, whose selection process had commenced and who were appointed under 1973 Rules and prior to promulgation of New Rules on 12.07.2010, constituted one single-homogenous class of Assistant Librarians and had functional and practical similarity also. Based on this, once in this case has held the Assistant Librarians, who were appointed before the promulgation of New Rules, to be entitled to the same pay scale of Rs.10300-34800+3600 GP in terms of the mandate of the law of this Court in the case of Madan Lal Tomar, V. D. Sarasvati and Rakesh Kumar (Supra), then the petitioners being similarly placed are entitled for same pay scale as given to Madan Lal Tomar, V. D. Sarasvati and Rakesh Kumar (Supra). Mere regularization in 2015 will not disentitle them for the ( 2025:HHC:32821 ) benefits which accrued to them at the time of initial - 22 - appointment in the year 2009 and when, the Rules of 1973, which were applicable in 2009 only provided for regular mode of recruitment/appointment in regular pay scale, with increments and all service benefits as were admissible to regular increments. SIMILARLY PLACED INCUMBENTS ENTITLED FOR SAME TREATMENT:

#7. Denial of similar benefits as given to others has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Inder Pal Yadav and others versus Union of India and others, (1985) 2 SCC 648, in following terms: between similarly discrimination “6. The Scheme envisages that it would be applicable to casual labour on projects who were in service as on January 1, 1984. The choice of this date does not commend to us, for it is likely to introduce an invidious distinction situated persons and expose some workmen to arbitrary fortuitous court's order. To illustrate, in some matters, the court granted interim stay before the workmen could be retrenched while some other were not so fortunate. Those in respect of whom the court granted interim relief be stay /suspension of the order of retrenchment, they would be treated in service on 1.1.1984 while others who fail to obtain interim relief though similarly situated would be pushed down in the implementation of the Scheme. There is another area where discrimination is flowing ( 2025:HHC:32821 ) - 23 - its ugly head. These likely to rear workmen come from the lowest grade of railway service. They can ill afford to rush to court. Their Federations have hardly been of any assistance. They had individually to collect money and rush to court which in case of some may be beyond their reach. Therefore, some of the retrenched workmen failed to knock at the doors of the court of justice because these doors do not open unless huge expenses are incurred. Choice in such a situation, even without crystal gazing is between incurring expenses for a litigation with uncertain outcome and hunger from day to day. It is a Hobson's choice. Therefore, those who could not come to the court need not be at a comparative disadvantage to those who rushed in here. If they are otherwise similarly situated, they are entitled to similar treatment if not by anyone else at the hands of this Court…...” 7(i). While dealing with the issue of extending similar benefits as given to others, Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in K. C. Sharma and Others vs Union of India and Ors, (1997) 6 SCC 721, held as under: “4. The validity of the retrospective amendments introduced by the impugned notifications dated December 5, 1988 had been considered by the Full Bench of the Tribunal in its judgment dated December 16, 1993 in O.A. No. 395-403 of 1993 and connected matters and the said notifications in so far as they gave amendments were held to be invalid as being violative a Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Since the appellants were impugned adversely retrospective effect affected by ( 2025:HHC:32821 ) - 24 - amendments, they sought the benefit of the filing the Tribunal by Full Bench of representations Railway before Administration. Since they failed to obtain redress, they filed the application (O.A. NO 774 of 1994) seeking relief before the Tribunal in April 1994. The said application of the appellants was dismissed by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment on the view that the application was barred by limitation. The Tribunal refused to condone the delay the said applications. filing of

#6. Having regarding circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this was a fit case in which the Tribunal should have condoned the delay in the filing of the application and the appellants should have been given relief in the same terms as was granted by the Full Bench of the Tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside, the delay in filing of O.A. No. 774 of 199 is condoned and the said application is allowed. The appellants would be entitled to the same relief in matter of pension as has been granted by the Full Bench of the Tribunal in its judgment dated December 16, 1993 in O.A. Nos. 395- 403 of 1993 and connected matters.” 7(ii). The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of Uttar Pradesh & Others vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors, (2015) 1 SCC 347, mandated that if a particular set of employees has been granted relief by Courts, in a judgement in rem, then, all persons who are similarly placed should be extended the same treatment and ( 2025:HHC:32821 ) not doing so, would amount to discrimination under - 25 - Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in the following terms:- “22 The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under:

22.1 The Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.

22.2 However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters laches and delays, and/or acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. reason

22.3 However, this exception may not apply in judgment cases where ( 2025:HHC:32821 ) - 26 - pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularization and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence.” 7(iii). While dealing with a situation as to whether one employee can be treated differently when, similar claims and rights stand adjudicated in the case of similarly situated person, has been outlined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siraj Ahmad vs State of Uttar Pradesh, 2019 (17) Scale 626, as under:- “23. We further fail to appreciate as to how the same High Court could have considered the case of two employees differently when they were similarly circumstances. It is not in dispute that the present appellant as well as Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi were selected through the same selection process though their orders of appointment differs. ( 2025:HHC:32821 ) - 27 - Bachelor to be entitled

#27. It is to be noted that the appellant has obtained Science (Engineering) degree in the year 1987 and though Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi had obtained the A.M.I.E. in 1993, taking into consideration that Sunil Dutt Sharma and Sajid Hasan had obtained the degree of A.M.I.E. in 1994, the said Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi was held promotion on 18.01.1995 i.e. the date on which the said Sajid Hasan and Sunil Dutt Sharma were promoted as Assistant Engineer from Junior Engineer. We fail to appreciate the approach of the High Court in denying the promotion to the appellant when all the other three i.e. namely Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi, Sajid Hasan and Sunil Dutt Sharma were appointed in the year 1987 through the same selection process and though Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi had obtained the degree in 1993 and Sajid Hasan and Sunil Dutt Sharma had obtained the same in 1994 whereas the appellant had obtained the said degree in 1987.” 7(iv). While outlying the principles of parity in service jurisprudence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1943 of 2022 titled Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel versus Union of India and Others, has held as under: “21. We see no delay in the appellant approaching the Tribunal. The appellant has been seeking justice from 2014 and the only delay between 2017 to 2021 after the withdrawal of the earlier applications with liberty, was due to the fact that between August, 2017 and 2019 she was posted in Arunachal Pradesh and it was during this time that the appellant made a second representation. Thereafter, the period between March, 2020 ( 2025:HHC:32821 ) - 28 - and January, 2021 was on account of Covid- 19 pandemic. In any event, since a clear case of discrimination has been made out, we do not want to non-suit the appellant on the ground of delay. We say so on the special facts of this case. situated

#23. We hold that the appellant was wrongly excluded from consideration when other similarly considered granted permanent commission. Today, eleven years have elapsed. It will not be fair to subject her to the rigors of the 2013 parameters as she is now nearly 45 years of age. There has been no fault on the part of the appellant. officers direct

#24. On the peculiar facts of this case and since nothing adverse has been placed on record with regard to performance of the appellant, in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, we direct appellant ought to be given Permanent Commission. We appellant’s case be taken up for grant of Permanent Commission and she be extended the benefit of Permanent Commission with effect from the same date the similarly situated persons who obtained benefits pursuant judgment dated 22.01.2014 in O.A. No. 111 of 2013 of the Principal Bench of the AFT. All consequential benefits seniority, promotion and monetary benefits, including arrears shall be extended to the appellant. The above directions shall be implemented within a period of four weeks from today.”

#8. The rejection order dated January, 2017, Annexure A-6 passed by Director Higher Education, by relying upon the advice given by Law Department to govern the pay scales of petitioners under the New ( 2025:HHC:32821 ) - 29 - Recruitment and Promotion Rules dated 12.07.2010 is of no assistance to the respondents, when, this plea, has been negated by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Rakesh Kumar (supra), against which, even the LPA No.217 of 2023, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and another versus Rakesh Kumar and others was also dismissed on 1.12.2023 and the judgement stands implemented also. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS:

#9. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petition is allowed, in the following terms:- i) ii) Rejection orders dated January, 2017, Annexure A-6, is quashed and set aside; State Authorities are directed to grant the pay scale of Rs 10300-34800+3600 GP as Assistant Librarians w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and UGC pay scale of Rs.15600-39100+6000 GP by treating the petitioners them at par with Assistant Librarians in the cases of “Madan Lal Tomar, V. D. Sarasvati and Rakesh Kumar (Supra)”, as revised from time to time with all pay fixations benefits accruing therefrom; iii) Needless to say, that since the instant petition [OA 4006 of 2018 converted as ( 2025:HHC:32821 ) - 30 - CWPOA No. 4735 of 2020] was filed on 11.07.2018 before the State Administrative later transferred to this Tribunal and fixation shall accrue Court] then pay from due date but actual notionally, monetary benefits, shall accrue, for a period of three years preceding the filing of instant petition [on 11.07.2018] in the light of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India versus Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648; Shiv Dass versus Union of India and Others; (2007) 9 SCC 274; State of Madhya Pradesh and Others versus Yogendra Shrivastava Asger Insurance Corporation of India (2016) in Rushibhai 13 SCC 797, Jagdishchandra versus Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation CA No.4134 of 2022 S C 641] decided on 18.05.2022, with all consequential benefits thereafter ; (2010) 12 SCC 538 and Ibrahim Amin Versus Life followed Pathak [2022 SCC Online iv) Respondents are mandated to release all admissible benefits the petitioners within 6 weeks from today; failing which, the Respondents shall be interest @ 6% per annum, thereafter till actual realization. liable In aforesaid terms, the instant petition and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. September 19, 2025 (himani) (Ranjan Sharma) Judge