2026:HHC:12256

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

CWPOA No.4080 of 2019

Decided on: 18

th

April, 2026

__________________________________________________________________

Paras Ram ...Petitioner

Versus

HPSEBL ...Respondent

__________________________________________________________________

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge

Whether approved for reporting?

1

For the petitioner: Mr. Prem P. Chauhan, Ms. Shikha

Rajta and Ms. Tara Devi, Advocates.

For the respondent: Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate.

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)

The petitioner by way of present writ petition, has

prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-

(a) to issue a writ of certiorari or direction in nature

thereof, quashing the impugned order dated

18.01.2008 (Annexure P-9), dated 01.08.2008

(Annexure P-10) & dated 28/05/2012 (Annexure P-18)

of the writ petition, as unconstitutional and illegal and

contrary to the law.

b)to issue a writ of mandamus, appropriate writ,

order or direction in nature thereof, directing the

respondent to pay the arrears of illegally refixed pay

and allowances with all the consequential benefits and

1

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2

interest thereon @18% pa.

2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that

the respondent-Board had issued Office Order No.12 dated

31.01.1991 (Annexure P-1), whereby a time bound benefit of

promotional scales was introduced. As per this Scheme, an

employee who has not received the benefit of 9/16 years time

bound promotional scale has not earned three regular

promotions in his career and has not earned third promotion

in his regular service between 16

th

and 23

rd

years of service,

was entitled to Advance Promotional Increments (two

increments) on completion of 23 years of regular service.

3. The petitioner who had completed 23 years

service and covered under the ibid scheme was granted the

benefit of two Advance Promotional Increments on

25.08.1993, without exercising the option by him and his pay

was fixed w.e.f. 01.01.1994. The respondent-Board had issued

the letter dated 23.05.1995, wherein it was decided that in

cases where the pay of an employees happen to be changed

3

with retrospective effect for any reason as a result of

change/amendment of Board’s decision, they shall be entitled

to exercise the option within three months. Thereafter,

another letter was issued on 12.10.1995 to exercise the

option within three months. However, the petitioner had

exercised the option on 03.09.1996. As per the ibid office

order, the scheme had to take effect from 01.01.1986.

However, the payment of arrears would be spread over the

next three years. During vetting of pay by the Accounts

Officer (Pay Fix.), it was noticed that the petitioner had not

exercised the option within the stipulated period and instead

exercised it on 03.09.1996 for the grant of benefit of Annual

Promotional Increment on completion of 23 years of service.

As such, the same cannot be considered until special

relaxation to exercise the option at a belated stage is granted

by the Secretary of the respondent-Board as per letter dated

18.01.2008(Annexure P-9). Thereafter, vide office order dated

4

01.08.2008 (Annexure P-10), his pay was re-fixed.

4. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the said

order, had made representations to the respondent-Board,

which were not decided, and thus, the petitioner approached

this Court by way of CWP No. 7810 of 2010-I, titled, Paras

Ram vs. HPSEB Ltd., which was disposed of on 21.03.2012

with a direction to the respondent-Board to decide the

representations made by the petitioner with an open mind,

untrammeled and uninfluenced by the orders already passed,

and further to pass appropriate orders after affording an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of

two months from the date of production of a copy of the

judgment.

5. In sequel to the directions issued by this Court,

the respondent-Board vide order dated 28.05.2012 (Annexure

P-18), rejected the representations, holding that the

petitioner had not exercised the option within a period of

5

three months from the date of office order dated 12.10.1995

and exercised option on 03.09.1996 to grant the Advance

Promotional Increments on completion of 23 years of service

on 25.08.1993 to fix his pay under saving clause of FR-22(1)(a)

(i) w.e.f. 01.01.1994. Since the provision is statutory in nature

and the option exercised was time barred, the claim of the

petitioner is devoid of merit and beyond the scope of the

rules/instructions issued in this regard from time to time. The

respondent-Board has taken similar decision in other cases

where the officials had given their option beyond the

prescribed period of 3 months.

6. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order

of rejection, has approached this Court by way of instant

petition, averring therein that the action on the part of the

respondent-Board to re-fix his salary after a long lapse of

time of about 12 years, without affording an opportunity of

being heard to him, is illegal, arbitrary, mala fide,

6

discriminatory and against the well-established principles of

natural justice. Further the respondent-Board had taken a

very hyper-technical view that the option had not been

exercised within the time schedule at such a belated stage,

more so when the options were allowed even thereafter to

the remaining employees. The rejection of the representation

taking into account irrelevant material is wrong and thus be

quashed.

7. The respondent-Board filed reply to the petition

and supported its decision.

8. It has been averred in the reply that so far grant

of Advance Promotional Increments on completion of 23

years of service of the petitioner as on 24.08.1993, is

concerned, the benefit of Advance Promotional Increments

was allowed to him by the competent authority vide office

order dated 21.10.1993. It has further been averred that the

instructions regarding grant of Advance Promotional

7

Increments were modified vide Office Order No.123 dated

12.10.1995 and it was ordered that the benefits of Advance

Promotional Increments will be granted in the existing scale

of employee concerned and such increments will be granted

in the same manner as are granted on promotion in higher

grade and such officials will not be entitled for the benefit on

their next regular promotion. The respondent-Board had

introduced the scheme to its employees to exercise the

option for fixation of pay on promotion or otherwise (revision

of pay scale etc.) within a period of three months and since

the petitioner did not exercise the option within three

months, the withdrawal of the benefit is justified. It has also

been averred that the petitioner has preferred the claim in

the year 2010 i.e. after a period of about 13-14 years, which is

highly belated and suffers from delay and laches. Since the

provision was statutory in nature, the option exercised by the

petitioner was time-barred as he had exercised the same

8

after 9 months. In case, the person keeps silent and does not

agitate his rights, then his remedy is lost.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties

and also perused the record carefully.

10. It is not in dispute that the respondent-Board had

issued the office order dated 31.01.1991, whereby the benefit

of Advance Promotional Increments (two increments) on

completion of 23 years of service was to be given to its

employees who had not earned three regular promotions in

their career. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was

granted the said benefit of two increments on 25.08.1993,

when he had completed 23 years of service with the

respondent-Board, and his pay was fixed under the

provisions of F.R.22(c) (now F.R.22(1)(a)(i) w.e.f. 01.01.1994)

without exercising any option by him. It is also admitted by

the respondent-Board that though the petitioner, in

pursuance of the communication dated 23.05.1995 and

9

thereafter letter dated 12.10.1995, had exercised the option

after three months on 03.09.1996 and despite that, the

respondent-Board had not withdrawn two increments given

to him under the scheme and it is only after the vetting of his

pay, an objection was raised and an office order dated

18.01.2008 was passed, wherein it was mentioned that either

relaxation be obtained or the pay be re-fixed, since the

petitioner had not exercised the option within three months.

11. No doubt, the petitioner had not exercised the

option within the stipulated period, but at the same time,

firstly, the respondent-Board without exercising of option by

the petitioner had granted him the benefit on 25.08.1993

after completion of 23 years service and thereafter his pay

was fixed w.e.f. 01.01.1994. Thereafter, though the period of

three months was stipulated to give option by the officials as

per communication dated 23.05.1995, but the option given by

the petitioner on 03.09.1996 was accepted, meaning thereby

10

the period of exercising the option was condoned by the

respondent-Board. It was only after the audit objection/while

vetting the pay of the petitioner, an objection was raised as is

evident from a perusal of order dated 18.01.2008 (Annexure

P-9) and thereafter, an office order dated

01.08.2008(Annexure P-10) was passed to re-fix the pay of the

petitioner. If the order dated 18.01.2008 is perused, it was

clearly mentioned by the Accounts Officer of the respondent-

Board that either the relaxation be obtained or the pay be re-

fixed correctly. Since there was no fault on the part of the

petitioner when his pay was re-fixed without exercising

option by him on 28.10.1993 after issuing the office order

dated 31.01.1991 granting him two increments after

competition of 23 years’ service w.e.f. 24.08.1993, the

appropriate course for the respondent-Board was to grant

special relaxation in the case of the petitioner, once he was

not at fault. Had the petitioner not been granted the benefit

11

of the office order dated 31.01.1991 without exercising option

by him, the respondent-Board could have drawn the benefit

that since the petitioner did not exercise the option within the

stipulated period, he cannot be allowed to exercise the same

at this belated stage. Not only this, even when the petitioner

exercised the option after expiry of three months as per the

letter dated 12.10.1995 on 03.09.1996, the respondent-Board

did not withdraw the benefits earlier granted to him. Thus,

the order of fixing his pay after withdrawal of two increments

granted to him vide office order dated 28.10.1993 w.e.f.

25.08.1993 vide order dated 01.08.2008 (Annexure P-10) i.e.

after about fifteen years, is totally unjustified.

12. The plea taken by the respondent-Board in the

reply that the petitioner had raked up the claim in the year

2010 i.e. after a period of about 13 to 14 years, which is highly

belated and suffers from delay and laches, is also without any

basis for the simple reason that the petitioner was granted

12

the benefit of office order dated 31.01.1991 vide office order

dated 28.10.1993 w.e.f. 25.08.1993 after competition of 23

years’ service on 24.08.1993 and for the first time, it was

observed by the Accounts Officer (P/Fix) of the respondent-

Board on 18.01.2008 that the petitioner had exercised the

option on 03.09.1996 to grant the benefit of Annual

Promotional Increments, which is not within the stipulated

period and cannot be considered until special relaxation to

exercise the option at belated stage is granted by the

Secretary of the respondent-Board. Thereafter, the pay of the

petitioner was re-fixed vide office order dated 01.08.2008 and

against this order he had made the representations and

when no action was taken, he had approached this Court by

way of writ petition in the year 2010, which was disposed of

on 21.03.2012. Thus, the plea raised by the respondent-Board

that the petitioner had raked up the claim after 13-14 years, is

illogical, unjustified and thus rejected.

13

13. The plea regarding the factum that the petitioner

though remained silent and did not agitate his right is

concerned, the same is also rejected, for the reason that the

petitioner, immediately after coming to know about re-fixing

his pay had made the representations to the respondent-

Board, and when the same were not decided, the petitioner

had approached this Court by way of the petition in the year

2010. The respondent-Board, after the directions given by this

Court to decide the representations, took a hyper-technical

view that since the petitioner did not exercise the option

within the stipulated period, and the option was time-barred,

is totally unjustified, especially when the respondent-Board

had extended the benefit to the petitioner without exercising

option by him, and thereafter, when the option was exercised

by him as per the communications dated 23.05.1995 and

12.10.1995 on 03.09.1996, the same was accepted, since the

benefits already granted were not withdrawn and he was

14

allowed to continue to get the benefit of the office order

dated 31.01.1991.

14. It has not come on record that the petitioner was

made aware of the communications dated 23.05.1995 and

12.10.1995 to exercise the option within three months. The

respondent-Board has not disputed that the petitioner was

granted the benefit of the office order dated 31.01.1991

without exercising option by him and furthermore, the time

period was not prescribed in the said order. Further, once the

option given by the petitioner on 03.09.1996 was not rejected

and his pay was not re-fixed withdrawing the benefits of two

increments given to him vide office order dated 28.10.1993,

the impugned order dated 01.08.2008 passed after about

fifteen years is totally unjust, especially when the Accounts

Officer of the respondent-Board had also suggested to seek

relaxation by the Secretary of the respondent-Board. The

proper course which could have been adopted by the

15

respondent-Board was to give special relaxation in favour of

the petitioner, especially when initially he was granted the

benefit without exercising the option, and thereafter, when

he had given the option which was not rejected and the

benefits given to him were not altered by the respondent-

Board. Thus, the impugned order passed by the respondent-

Board to re-fix the pay of the petitioner withdrawing the

benefits of two increments, is totally illegal, arbitrary, unjust

and discriminatory.

15. It is not the case of the respondent-Board that the

petitioner is not entitled to the benefit as per the office order

dated 31.01.1991. The only reason to reject the claim was that

the petitioner did not exercise the option within time, though

in the office order dated 31.01.1991, no period of giving the

option was mentioned and further, the petitioner was

granted the benefit without exercising the option by him and

even after exercising the option after the stipulated period,

16

the benefits were not withdrawn as stated above.

16. Resultantly, the present writ petition is allowed

and the impugned orders dated 18.01.2008 (Annexure P-9),

01.08.2008 (Annexure P-10) and 28.05.2012 (Annexure P-18)

are quashed and set aside and the respondent-Board is

directed to pay the arrears on the basis of the pay earlier

fixed by the respondent-Board prior to issuance of office

order dated 01.08.2008. In case, the benefits are not released

in favour of the petitioner within three months from today,

the same shall carry interest @6% per annum from today, till

its payment.

17. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending

application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

18

th

April, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj )

(ankit) Judge