Budhi Ram Verma v. Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board Ltd.

Heard, Mr. M.L. Sharma, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Kashyap, Learned ( 2026:HHC:20348 ) 8 Counsel for the Respondent-HPSEBL.

5. Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances and the material on record, this Court is of the considered view, that the action of the Respondent-Board in denying the monetary benefits, by restricting the arrears for three years prior to filing of earlier CWP No. 116 of 2013 till the passing of orders on 04.06.2013 [Annexure P-17], has merit and the claim to this extent is accepted; whereas, the claim for entire monetary benefits is disallowed, for the following reasons:- 5(i). Plea of the Respondent-Board that a compromise was arrived at between the petitioner and the Respondent-Board that the petitioner shall not claim actual monetary benefits cannot sustain; when, no such compromise was ever arrived at between the parties and no such compromise has been placed on record by the Respondent-Board. ( 2026:HHC:20348 ) 9 Even, the order dated 04.06.2013 [Annexure P-17] does not spell out that any such compromise forgoing the arrears was arrived at between the petitioner and Respondent-Board. The plea, now being raised in the reply is an afterthought, just to deny the admissible actual benefits to the petitioner, when, the eligibility of the petitioner is not in dispute. Moreover once this benefit and entire arrear has been given to the similar and junior(s) incumbents, therefore the denial of arrears [though in restrictive form] to the petitioner amounts to treating “equals as unequal” and such an action cannot sustain. 5(ii). Indisputably, once a right for proficiency step-up increment had accrued to the petitioner w.e.f June 1995 and this benefit was denied till his superannuation on 31.10.2012, and the petitioner was constrained to file CWP No. 116 of 2013 and on the basis of the directions passed in CWP No. 116 of ( 2026:HHC:20348 ) 10 2013, the Respondent-Board issued an order on

04.06.2013 [Annexure P-17], granting proficiency step-up increments at par with juniors and similarly situated persons to the petitioner from due date i.e. 26.06.1987 therefore, once the Respondent-Board rectified inaction

04.06.2013 [Annexure P-17] granting benefits notionally w.e.f. June 1995, though notionally, then, the denial of arrears [restricted or entire arrears] without giving a prior notice, without giving a personal hearing cannot sustain. Even, the condition of giving notional benefits amounts to giving premium to Respondent-Board for its inaction ignoring that such benefit with all past arrears was given to others juniors. Moreover, the Respondent-Board has admitted in Para 3 of the Order dated 04.06.2013 the non-grant of benefits of proficiency step-up to the petitioner at par with similar incumbents/juniors, was due to administrative reasons. Denial of monetary benefits amounts to ( 2026:HHC:20348 ) 11 penalizing the petitioner without any fault attributable to him. In these circumstances, the rights of the petitioner for arrears has to be balanced vis-à-vis the incumbents of the Respondent-Board, whereby, on one hand, the Respondent-Board had denied the rightful entitlement due from June 1995 till passing of orders on 04.06.2013 [Annexure P-17] whereas on the other hand, the petitioner did not assert a claim from June 1995 till filing of earlier CWP No. 116 of 2013 on 26.02.2013 and therefore, in facts of instant case, the objection of Respondent-Board that the petition is time barred is devoid of any merit. Since the entitlement of the petitioner proficiency step-up, stands admitted, by Respondent- Board by issuing an order dated 04.06.2013 [Annexure P-17] w.e.f. 26.06.1987, therefore, instead of entire past arrears; the petitioner would be entitled to monetary benefits for a period of three years preceding the filing of the earlier writ petition, [i.e. CWP ( 2026:HHC:20348 ) 12 No. 116 of 2013] and as per the mandate of law in the case of Shiv Dass versus Union of India and Others (2007) 9 SCC 274; Union of India versus Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648; State of Madhya Pradesh and Others versus Yogendra Shrivastava (2010) 12 SCC 538 and Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak versus Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, 2022 SCC Online S C 641. DIRECTIONS:

6. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petition is partly allowed, in the following terms:- “(i). Condition of notional benefits of Proficiency Step-up in terms of order dated 04.06.2013 [Annexure P-17]; w.e.f 26.06.1987 as UDC-Senior assistant is quashed and set aside; (ii). Petitioner shall be entitled monetary benefits accruing Proficiency step-up in terms of order dated 04.06.2013 [Annexure P-17] for a period of three years ( 2026:HHC:20348 ) 13 prior to the filing of the earlier writ petition, i.e. CWP No. 116 of 2013, in terms of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Dass, Tarsem Singh, Yogendra Shrivastava and Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak (supra); (iii). Admissible arrears in direction no. (ii) be released within four weeks from the receipt of certified/downloaded copy of the judgment; (iv). Claim of the petitioner for entire past arrears is dismissed; (v). Parties to bear their respective costs.” In aforesaid terms, the instant petition is disposed of along with all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 15th May, 2026 (Shamsh Tabrez) (Ranjan Sharma) Judge