State of H.P. and another v. Roshan Lal Khajuria & another

Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate Generals, Priyanka Chauhan and Ms. Sidharth Jalta, Mr. Deputy General, Advocate appellants/State in LPA Nos.109, 322, 323, 357, 384, 386, 400, 439, 426, 486 of 2024, 77, 137, 141, 143, 145, 147, 149, 151, 154, 156, 157, 159, 160, 163, 165, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249 and 250 of 2025. Sunita Sharma, Ms. Senior Advocate with Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, appellants in LPA No.336, 349, 372, 374 of 2024, 142, 144, 155 and 164 of 2025. Advocate, Mr. K.S. Banyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Uday Singh Banyal, Advocate, for the appellant in LPA No.152 of 2025. For the Respondents : Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Mr. Aditya Kaushal, Mr. Prakash Sharma, Mr. Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Bhupinder Thakur, Mr. Sanjay Gandhi, OnkarJairath, Mr. Mandeep Chandel Mr. Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Advocate, No.1-H.P. Secreteriat in LPA No.386 of 2024 respondent 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 7 and Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.2-HPPSC. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma and Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocates, for respondent/Accountant General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). The present Letters Patent Appeals are being disposed of by a common order and all Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay are being allowed, which are necessitated, for the reasons which will come in the order itself. If the applications are not allowed, it will lead to an ambiguous situation, where certain set of persons would be getting the benefit, whereas in the other set matter is yet to be decided, on account of the order we propose to pass.

#2. The present Letters Patent Appeals have arisen against the order(s) passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.6952 of 2023 decided on 27.09.2023 out of LPA No.109 of 2024 arises, CWP No.5962 of 2023 decided on 21.05.2024 out of LPA No.322 of 2024 arises, CWP No.10959 of 2023 decided on

21.05.2025 out of LPA No.323 of 2024 arises, CWP No.8101 of 2023 decided on 20.10.2023 out of LPA No.336 of 2024 arises, CWP No.7927 of 2023 decided on 19.10.2023 out of LPA No.349 of 2024 arises, CWP No.8106 of 2023 decided on 30.10.2023 out of LPA No.357 of 2024 arises, CWP No.8256 of 2023 decided on 8

31.10.2023 out of LPA No.372 of 2024 arises, CWP No.3424 of 2024 decided on 29.04.2024 out of LPA No.374 of 2024 arises, CWP No.7645 of 2023 decided on 13.10.2023 out of LPA No.384 of 2024 arises, CWP No.7376 of 2023 decided on 22.03.2024 out of LPA No.386 of 2024 arises, CWP No.8090 of 2023 decided on

20.10.2023 out of LPA No.400 of 2024 arises, CWP No.8104 of 2023 decided on 20.10.2023 out of LPA No.439 of 2024 arises, CWP No.5920 of 2023 decided on 21.05.2024 out of LPA No.462 of 2024 arises, CWP No.9461 of 2023 decided on 21.05.2024 out of LPA No.486 of 2024 arises, CWP No.6283 of 2023 decided on

21.05.2024 out of LPA No.77 of 2025 arises, CWP No.7650 of 2023 decided on 13.10.2023 out of LPA No.137 of 2025 arises, CWP No.4382 of 2024 decided on 21.05.2024 out of LPA No.141 of 2025 arises, CWP No.8059 of 2023 decided on 20.10.2023 out of LPA No.142 of 2025 arises, CWP No.5453 of 2023 decided on

21.05.2024 out of LPA No.143 of 2025 arises, CWP No.8040 of 2023 decided on 20.10.2023 out of LPA No.144 of 2025 arises, CWP No.8508 of 2023 decided on 26.03.2024 out of LPA No.145 of 2025 arises, CWP No.5990 of 2023 decided on 21.05.2024 out of LPA No.147 of 2025 arises, CWP No.6284 of 2023 decided on

21.05.2024 out of LPA No.149 of 2025 arises, CWP No.6282 of 2023 decided on 21.05.2024 out of LPA No.151 of 2025 arises, 9 CWP No.7089 of 2023 decided on 29.09.2023 out of LPA No.152 of 2025 arises, CWP No.7644 of 2023 decided on 13.10.2023 out of LPA No.154 of 2025 arises, CWP No.7897 of 2023 decided on

18.10.2023 out of LPA No.155 of 2025 arises, CWP No.6023 of 2023 decided on 21.05.2024 out of LPA No.156 of 2025 arises, CWP No.5651 of 2023 decided on 26.09.2023 out of LPA No.157 of 2025 arises, CWP No.7731 of 2023 decided on 13.10.2023 out of LPA No.159 of 2025 arises, CWP No.7646 of 2023 decided on

13.10.2023 out of LPA No.160 of 2025 arises, CWP No.7341 of 2023 decided on 06.10.2023 out of LPA No.163 of 2025 arises, CWP No.7867 of 2023 decided on 18.10.2023 out of LPA No.164 of 2025 arises, CWP No.7335 of 2023 decided on 05.10.2023 out of LPA No.165 of 2025 arises, CWP No.8776 of 2023 decided on

12.03.2024 out of LPA No.244 of 2025 arises, CWP No.7394 of 2023 decided on 28.05.2024 out of LPA No.245 of 2025 arises, CWP No.6340 of 2023 decided on 21.05.2024 out of LPA No.246 of 2025 arises, CWP No.2676 of 2024 decided on 01.04.2024 out of LPA No.247 of 2025 arises, CWP No.7815 of 2023 decided on

17.10.2023 out of LPA No.248 of 2025 arises, CWP No.4466 of 2024 decided on 22.05.2024 out of LPA No.249 of 2025 arises, CWP No.7392 of 2023 decided on 28.05.2024 out of LPA No.250 of 2025 arises respectively. 10

#3. It is to be noticed that the issue in question was with regard to the benefit of the revised pay Rules of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022, which were deemed to come into force w.e.f. 01.01.2016, as per the notification dated 03.01.2022, which were pertaining to the serving employees. Similar benefits were also accorded to the persons who had retired after 01.01.2016, vide notification dated

25.02.2022. The initial parent notification dated 03.01.2022 under Rule 13 of the said Rules provides that the arrears would be paid in a manner and at such a time as has been approved by the Government. Resultantly in the subsequent notification also, for the retirees, there was Clause 10 that the amount was to be paid in such a manner, as may be decided by the Government. At the initial stage Civil Writ Petition No.2108 of 2023 titled as Bhagat Ram Vs. HRTC and others was allowed without calling for the reply by the Coordinate Bench and without the State having been impleaded as a party. Neither, the Rule or the Clauses as such, were subject matter of challenge in the said writ petition.

#4. Resultant affect was that the learned Single Judge(s) while basing their decision on the said order of the Division Bench, passed various orders allowing the writ petitions 11 on the same count and also keeping in view the fact that another Writ Petition No.2421 of 2023 titled as Amar Chand Vs. HRTC and Others was also decided on 15.06.2023 by the Divisoin Bench, which was also based upon Bhagat Ram’s case (supra).

#5. Reference can be made to two-three set of cases for elucidating the issue on factual matrix as such. On 19.09.2023 CWP No.6611 of 2023 titled as Surinder Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another was decided. On 26.09.2023, the learned Single Judge disposed of Civil Writ Petition No.5651 of 2023 titled Dr. Sunil Kumar Chandel & Others Vs. State of H.P. & Others in view of Bhagat Ram’s case (supra) and Amar Chand’s case (supra).

#6. Similarly, in CWP No.6952 of 2023 titled as Roshan Lal Khajuria Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another decided on 27.09.2023, the same order was repeated which is a subject matter of challenge in LPA No.109 of 2024.

#7. Similarly in Civil Writ Petition No.7089 of 2023 titled as Sunder Lal Negi and others Vs. State of H.P. & others decided on 29.09.2023, the benefit was granted on the basis of order passed in CWP No.6611 of 2023 titled as Surinder Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, decided on

19.09.2023. 12

#8. It is pertinent to notice that in Bhagat Ram’s case (supra), the Coordinate Bench, as such had reviewed the order on 30.08.2024. Similarly LPA No.85 of 2024 was also allowed by the Coordinate Bench and the order dated 26.09.2023 was set aside and Civil Writ Petition No.5651 of 2023 in Dr. Sunil Kumar Chandel’s case (supra) was restored. The learned Single Judge allowed the Review Petition No.25 of 2024 on 13.12.2024 in Surinder Singh’s case (supra) on the said basis and resultantly, the said writ petition No.6611 of 2023 is also pending.

#9. Thus, we are not referring to the other orders passed by the learned Single Judge(s), which are in the same terms and reliance has been made mainly upon the decision in Surinder Singh’s case (supra) and Dr. Sunil Kumar Chandel’s case (supra). While allowing the writ petitions, reference was also be made to the order passed in CWP No.7376 of 2023 titled as H.P. Secretariat & other Affiliated Pensioners Welfare Association Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., which is one of the later decisions recorded on 22.03.2024, wherein other learned Single Judge(s) again relied upon Surinder Singh’s case (supra) and Dr. Sunil Kumar Chandel’s case (supra) to grant the same relief. 13

#10. We also find that in CWP No.4586 of 2023 in Tika Ram Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Another alongwith 36 other cases, which was decided on 21.05.2024 by another learned Single Judge, the similar judgments passed by the learned Single Judges have been referred to. We already noticed, this aspect earlier on 15.05.2025 and also the fact that none of the writ petitioners’ as such had raised challenge to the Rule in question, vide which the deferred payment methodology had been adopted by the State. Apparently, now the necessary applications being CMP No.11374 of 2025 and CMP No.11383 of 2025 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC have been filed in two of the writ petitions bearing i.e. CWP No.2108 of 2023 in Bhagat Ram’s case (supra) and in CWP No.12323 of 2024 titled as Rajesh Bakshi Vs. State of H.P. & Others, respectively and the amended writ petitions have also been filed along with the applications for challenging the said Clauses of both the Notifications dated 03.01.2022 and the Office memorandum dated 25.02.2022.

#11. Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that the orders passed by the learned Single Judge(s) were based on an order passed by the Division Bench dated 31.05.2023 Bhagat Ram’s case (supra), which itself was re-called 14 on an order passed by the Division Bench dated 31.05.2023 Bhagat Ram’s case (supra), which itself was re-called on

30.08.2024, and therefore, there is no decision as such on merits by the learned Single Judge(s). Even otherwise now since the Rule as such has been challenged, the matter would have to be re-heard by the Division Bench. As noticed above, the Rule was not subject matter of challenge and since the vires as such is involved, the State’s reply is also not on record.

#12. Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that the judgments of the learned Single Judge(s) necessarily have to be set aside and we accordingly allow all the appeals. Resultantly all the writ petitions are restored to be heard with CWP No.2108 of 2023 Bhagat Ram’s case etc.

#13. Accordingly, appeals are disposed of alongwith pending application(s), if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 22nd May, 2025 (munish/ankit)