2026:HHC:39533

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.8062 of 2026

a/w CWP Nos.8543, 8556, 8157, 8558,

8559, 8560, 10072 and 10089 of 2026

Reserved on: 28.07.2026

Date of decision: 16.09.2026

Uploaded on: 16.09.2026

1. CWP No.8062 of 2026

Surinder Singh. ...Petitioner.

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.

2. CWP No.8543 of 2026

Rajinder Kumar. ...Petitioner.

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.

3. CWP No.8556 of 2026

Pushp Lata. ...Petitioner.

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.

4. CWP No.8157 of 2026

Man Singh. ...Petitioner.

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.

5. CWP No.8558 of 2026

Nisha Rani. ...Petitioner.

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.

-2-

2026:HHC:39533

6. CWP No.8559 of 2026

Anju Sharma. ...Petitioner.

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.

7. CWP No.8560 of 2026

Ramesh Kumar. ...Petitioner.

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.

8. CWP No.10072 of 2026

Hitender Kumar. ...Petitioner.

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.

9. CWP No.10089 of 2026

Parkash. ...Petitioner.

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents.

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

1

For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Chaman Lal, Advocate in all matters.

For the respondent(s) : Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General,

for the respondents-State in all matters

1

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

-3-

2026:HHC:39533

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge

For involvement of common questions of law and facts

to be adjudicated in these matters, as requested, these writ petitions

are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Petitioners were serving as Lecturer (Direct) with the

respondent-Education Department on regular basis. Next promotion

available to the petitioners was to the post of Principal (School

Cadre), Class-I (Gazetted), in terms of the Recruitment and

Promotion Rules (‘R&P Rules’) governing the appointment and

promotion to the post of Principal (School Cadre). The ratio of

promotions of Headmasters and Lecturers to the post of Principal

was 50:50, as is apparent from the R&P Rules dated 10.08.2007,

placed on record as Annexure P-1.

3. Petitioners became fully eligible and entitled to be

considered for promotion to the post of Principal in consonance with

the R&P Rules, and posts of Principals were also lying vacant.

However, the respondent Department, instead of convening a

regular DPC for regular promotion to the post of Principal, issued

Notifications directing the petitioners and others working as Lecturer

(Direct) to hold charge of the post of Principal (School Cadre) in their

existing pay scales, with the rider that they shall not be entitled to

-4-

2026:HHC:39533

any financial benefits attached to the post of Principal for holding the

charge of the post of Principal (School Cadre).

4. Some of the petitioners retired on attaining the age of

superannuation from various schools.

5. Respondents delayed the conducting of meetings of the

Departmental Promotion Committee (‘DPC’) for an inordinately long

period, which led to the filing of various writ petitions, including CWP

No.737 of 2024 titled Pradeep Singh & Ors. vs. State of H.P. &

Ors. along with connected matters (CWP Nos.727, 3777, 4043,

4096, 6313 and 16641 of 2024), seeking directions to convene the

DPC for regularisation/promotion as Principal. During the pendency

thereof, the State Government convened the DPC, and ultimately,

vide notification dated 08.05.2025 (Annexure P-5), on the

recommendation of the DPC, petitioners were promoted to the post

of Principal on regular basis with immediate effect, but restricting the

benefits on notional basis from the date on which petitioners

assumed the charge.

6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid notification, the

writ petitions referred supra were disposed of by the learned Single

Judge vide judgment dated 13.05.2025 (Annexure P-3), with liberty

-5-

2026:HHC:39533

to the petitioners to seek appropriate remedies for redressal of their

surviving grievances, notwithstanding any observation made in the

said judgment.

7. In the aforesaid backdrop, petitioners have filed these

writ petitions seeking appropriate directions to quash notification

dated 08.05.2025 (Annexure P-5), and to direct the respondents to

convene DPCs from the year 2020 to 2022 and promote the

petitioners on actual basis, with prayer of the following identical

substantive reliefs (taken from CWP No.8062 of 2026):-

“(i) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be

issued and the Notification dated 08.05.2025, Annexure P-

5, may kindly be quashed/modified being arbitrary, mala

fide and illegal, by directing the respondents to convene

DPC from the year 2020 to 2022 and make promotion of

the petitioner on actual basis from the date when the

petitioner assumed the charge of the post of Principal, as

has been done in similar situated persons, as is evident

from Annexures P-2 & P-2/T, with all consequential

benefits of pay scale, increments, arrears, seniority and the

arrears may be ordered to be granted along with interest

@ 9% p.a., in the interest of law and justice.

(ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus or an appropriate writ,

order or directions may kindly be issued to the respondents

to deemed the petitioner promoted on regular basis as

Principal with all the actual monetary benefits and the pay

scale of the post of Principal (school cadre) from the date

when he was given the charge of the post of Principal

-6-

2026:HHC:39533

(school cadre) along with interest @ 9% p.a. till the date of

its actual realization.”

8. It is the case of the petitioners that in similar

circumstances, Headmasters were entrusted charge of the post of

Principal (School Cadre) on their existing pay scales without any

additional remuneration for holding such charge during the year

2015 against their quota. Subsequently, like petitioners, later on,

these Headmasters were also promoted on regular basis to the post

of Principal (School Cadre) Class-I vide notification dated

17.12.2018 (Annexure P-2), but by extending to them all service

benefits, including the pay band of Rs. 15600–39100 + GP Rs. 6600,

from the date of assuming charge of the post of Principal, that is,

from the actual date of their joining as Principal on placement basis.

9. It has been canvassed on behalf of the petitioners that

Lecturers as well as Headmasters are in the feeder category to the

same post of Principal (School Cadre), however, having different and

distinct quotas. Though their respective promotions have to be made

on the basis of seniority in their feeder cadre. However, at the same

time, respondents are discriminating against the Lecturers. The

School Lecturers were promoted to the post of Principal (School

Cadre) vide notification dated 08.05.2025 in a similar fashion like

-7-

2026:HHC:39533

Headmaster, after posting them on placement basis on 29.09.2020.

Whereas in the case of Headmasters, respondents have extended

all financial and seniority benefits from the date of their initial

appointment as Principal on placement/officiating basis, but no such

benefits have been extended to the present petitioners, who were

Lecturers and otherwise were competent, entitled, and eligible to be

promoted as Principals. It is further submitted that the inaction of the

State in delaying the DPC meetings caused substantial monetary

loss to the petitioners, particularly for not extending the financial

benefits to them from the initial date of appointment as Principal,

which has been termed by the department as posting on placement

basis, whereas petitioners have performed duties of regular Principals.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners, to substantiate the

claim of the petitioners from the date of initial appointment, has

placed reliance upon the judgment dated 06.04.2026 passed by a

learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.9321 of 2025 titled

Vijay Parmar and Others vs. State of H.P. & Ors., whereby the

learned Single Judge directed the respondents to confer the benefits

of regularisation as were conferred upon their counterparts in terms

of the R&P Rules (Annexure P-1) from the date of assuming charge

of the post on placement basis with all consequential benefits.

-8-

2026:HHC:39533

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted

that it is incumbent upon the respondent-Department to conduct

regular DPCs at least once a year to fill up vacancies amongst

eligible candidates. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon

communication dated 14.11.2013 (Annexure P-4) issued by the

Principal Secretary (Personnel), Government of Himachal Pradesh,

regarding convening meetings of the Departmental Promotion

Committee and monitoring thereof by Nodal Officers, addressed to

all Administrative Secretaries, Special/Additional Secretaries, Joint

Secretaries, Heads of Departments, and Deputy Commissioners.

Referring to the aforesaid communication, it has been submitted that

for delay in convening the DPC due to administrative laxity or any

other reason, the petitioners cannot be penalised.

12. Vide aforesaid communication dated 14.11.2013, it was

communicated as under:-

“Subject: Regarding timely convening of meeting(s) of

Departmental Promotion Committee and monitoring by

Nodal Officer - instructions thereof.

I am directed to invite your attention to the subject cited

above and to say that as per procedure laid down, the meeting of

Departmental Promotion Committee is required to be convened at

regular annual intervals to draw panels which could be utilized for

ordering promotions against the vacancies occurring during the

course of a year. Time-schedule for holding the meetings of the

-9-

2026:HHC:39533

DPC for promotion to the posts falling within the purview of the

Department concerned or HPPPSC has been devised from time

to time. The meetings of the DPC in respect of posts falling within

the purview of Department are to be held once in a year in the

month of April, as far as possible, for all the existing and

anticipated vacancies. In so far as the meetings of the DPC for

posts falling within the purview of Himachal Pradesh Public

Service Commission are concerned, the time schedule has been

spread over the month from April to December every year. In the

past, the decision of the Government to the effect that DPC should

be convened regularly every year and the authorities should also

ensure that action to convene DPC meeting is initiated well in

advance of the expiry of the previous panel, has also been

circulated. It was also decided that each department should make

one of their officers responsible and appoint him as Nodal Officer

for monitoring the holding of DPC meetings regularly.

2. It has come to the notice of the Government that the DPC

meetings are not convened in time despite clear cut

decision/instructions of this Department issued from time to time

resulting different legal / administrative problems and also

unnecessary litigation. The delay in convening of DPC meetings

results not only in financial loss to the incumbents but also affect

in their future career in as much as their promotion to the next

higher grade is concerned.

3. It is once again emphasized that henceforth all

departments will ensure the convening of DPC meeting at regular

intervals as indicated / prescribed from time to time. It is further

reiterated that all the departments will appoint a Nodal Officer for

monitoring the DPC meeting regularly and in time. In case of delay

in holding the DPC, the Nodal Officer so appointed and/or any

other erring officer/official will be held responsible and liable to

disciplinary action.

-10-

2026:HHC:39533

4. These instructions may be brought to the notice of all

concerned for guidance and strict compliance.”

13. Reply on behalf of the respondents has been filed in

CWP No.8062 of 2026. Learned Deputy Advocate General stated

before the Court that the pleadings in CWP No.8062 of 2026 are

sufficient to adjudicate identical issue involved in all connected writ

petitions and has adopted the same in all petitions.

14. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondent-State, it has

been averred that there was inter se litigation between ad hoc

Lecturers and Direct Lecturers, and pendency of the said litigation

caused the delay in making regular promotions. It has been further

submitted that petitioners were given charge of the post of Principal

on placement basis in their own pay scales, on the basis of tentative

seniority, and it was explicitly stipulated in the notification that they

would not be entitled to any additional remuneration for holding the

charge of Principal (School Cadre).

15. On behalf of the respondents, reliance has been placed

on the judgment of the Apex Court in A. Francis vs. Management

of Metropolitan Transport Corporation, (2014) 13 SCC 283.

Referring to the aforesaid judgment, it has been submitted that

entitlement to the salary of a higher post depends upon the terms

-11-

2026:HHC:39533

and conditions governing the appointment and applicable service

rules, where an employee is required to discharge the duties of a

higher post, subject to specific condition and without any stipulation

conferring entitlement to higher pay scale, no such monetary claim

can be granted merely because the employee has discharged the

functions of the higher post.

16. With regard to the judgment passed by the learned

Single Judge in CWP No.9321 of 2025, it has been stated that the

same has not been implemented yet, as the matter is under

examination in consultation with the Law Department.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in rejoinder,

submitted that the omission and commission on the part of the

respondents is also contrary to the provisions of the Fundamental

Rules applicable to the present case.

18. The R&P Rules provide 50% quota to each category, i.e.

to the Headmasters and Lecturers. Both are one and the same class,

constituting the feeder cadre to the post of Principal (School Cadre).

Therefore, they form one homogeneous class being a feeder cadre

to the post of Principal (School Cadre). Even if Headmasters and

Lecturers are treated as separate classes, then also, with regard to

-12-

2026:HHC:39533

promotions to be made against their respective quotas to the post of

Principal (School Cadre), it is incumbent upon the respondents, for

constitutional duty of the employer, i.e. respondents, to pass similar

orders in the case of Headmasters as well as Lecturers under

identical facts and circumstances. Headmasters were given charge

of the post of Principal in the same fashion like the Lecturers.

However, in the case of Headmasters, financial benefits including

the higher pay scale were extended from the date of initial

appointment, whereas in the case of Lecturers, such benefits were

extended only on a notional basis, and on actual basis only after

regular promotion vide notification dated 08.05.2025. Therefore, on

the ground of discrimination, amongst two similarly situated classes,

the action of the respondents is required to be interfered with.

19. For combination of appointments and holding a post in

a substantive or officiating capacity, Fundamental Rule 49,

contained in Chapter VI (Combination of Appointments) of the

Fundamental Rules, provides that when a Government servant is

formally appointed to hold full charge of the duties of higher post in

the same office and in the same cadre/line of promotion in addition

to ordinary duties, he shall be allowed the pay admissible to him of

-13-

2026:HHC:39533

the higher post. Relevant portion of Fundamental Rule 49 reads as

under:-

“F.R. 49. The Central Government may appoint a Government

servant already holding a post in a substantive or officiating

capacity to officiate, as a temporary measure, in one or more of

other independent posts at one time under the Government. In

such cases, his pay is regulated as follows:-

(i) where a Government servant is formally appointed to hold

full charge of the duties of a higher post in the same office

as his own and in the same cadre/line of promotion, in

addition to his ordinary duties, he shall be allowed the pay

admissible to him, if he is appointed to officiate in the higher

post, unless the Competent Authority reduces his

officiating pay under Rule 35; but no additional pay shall,

however, be allowed for performing the duties of a lower

post;

(ii) where a Government servant is formally appointed to hold

dual charges of two posts in the same cadre in the same

office carrying identical scales of pay, no additional pay

shall be admissible irrespective of the period of dual

charge: Provided that, if the Government servant is

appointed to an additional post which carries a special pay,

he shall be allowed such special pay;

(iii) where a Government servant is formally appointed to hold

charge of another post or posts which is or are not in the

same office, or which, though in the same office, is or are

not in the same cadre/line of promotion, he shall be allowed

the pay of the higher post, or of the highest post, if he holds

chargé of more than two posts, in addition to ten per cent

of the presumptive pay of the additional post or posts, if the

-14-

2026:HHC:39533

additional charge is held for a period exceeding 45 days

but not exceeding 3 months:

Provided that if in any particular case, it is considered

necessary that the Government servant should hold

charge of another post or posts for a period exceeding 3

months, the concurrence of Department of Personnel and

Training shall be obtained for the payment of the additional

pay beyond the period of 3 months;

(iv) where an officer is formally appointed to hold full additional

charge of another post, the aggregate of pay and additional

pay shall in no case exceed Rs 2,25,000;

(v) no additional pay shall be admissible to a Government

servant who is appointed to hold current charge of the

routine duties of another post or posts irrespective of the

duration of the additional charge;

(vi) if compensatory or sumptuary allowances are attached to

one or more of the posts, the Government servant shall

draw such compensatory or sumptuary allowances as the

Central Government may fix:

Provided that such allowances shall not exceed the total of

the compensatory and sumptuary allowances attached to

all the posts.”

20. From a perusal of Fundamental Rule 49, it is

unambiguously clear that the petitioners are entitled to the pay scale

of the higher post from the date of their initial appointment, from

which date they have discharged duties of Principal.

-15-

2026:HHC:39533

21. It is also relevant to refer here that as per stand taken by

the respondents that Lecturers were given charge of the post of

Principal on placement, and therefore, are not entitled to the

salary/higher pay scale of the higher post. This notion appears to be

misconceived because placement of an employee is always against

a post of the same category or ranking. There cannot be a placement

of an employee of a feeder cadre to a cadre to which appointment

can be made only on promotion. In a placement, the pay scale of the

two posts must be similar, however, that is not so in the case of two

distinct cadres, where one is a feeder cadre and the other is a

promotional cadre. Therefore, the plea taken by the respondents that

the petitioners are not entitled to the pay admissible to the higher

post is unsustainable.

22. In Fundamental Rule 49, it is provided that a person

appointed to officiate in the higher post shall be entitled to the salary

of the higher post, unless the competent authority reduces his

officiating pay under Fundamental Rule 35. Fundamental Rule 35

provides that the Government may fix the pay of an officiating

Government servant at an amount less than that admissible under

the rules. In any case, though the Government is entitled to fix a

lesser pay for an officiating Government servant, but at the same

-16-

2026:HHC:39533

time, the respondent-State cannot pick and choose so as to fix a

reduced officiating pay for one category (Lecturers) while releasing

the full pay scale in the case of other category, i.e. Headmasters.

Furthermore, it is not a case where the Government has fixed the

pay of officiating Government servants under FR 35. In fact, there is

a simpliciter denial of payment of the salary of the higher post despite

extracting the full duties of Principal (School Cadre) from the

Lecturers.

23. The judgment passed by the Apex Court in State of

Punjab and another vs. Dharam Pal, (2017) 9 SCC 395, is also

relevant, wherein the Apex Court, relying upon its previous decision

in Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer vs. Hari Om Sharma, (1998) 5

SCC 87, upheld the judgment of the High Court directing the

employer department to extend financial benefits to employees who

were directed to discharge the duties of higher posts on an officiating

basis and retired as such.

24. In given facts and circumstances, judgment in A.

Francis vs. Management of Metropolitan Transport Corporation,

(2014) 13 SCC 283, relied upon by the respondent-State is of no

help to the respondents.

-17-

2026:HHC:39533

25. In view of the aforesaid exposition of law laid down by

the Apex Court, read with Fundamental Rule 49 and keeping in view

the benefit extended by the respondent-Department to the

Headmasters, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is

merit in the claim of the petitioners and the plea of the respondents

cannot be sustained.

26. Accordingly, the action of the respondents in denying the

actual financial benefits, including the higher salary, pay scale, and

grade pay etc., to the petitioners from the date they actually assumed

charge of the post of Principal (School Cadre), is quashed and

declared to be illegal and bad in law.

27. The respondents are directed to confer the benefits of

the higher pay scale payable to the post of Principal upon the

petitioners from the date of their initial assumption of charge on

placement basis or otherwise, with all consequential benefits.

28. The requisite monetary benefits and arrears shall be

computed and disbursed to the petitioners as expeditiously as

possible and latest by 30.11.2026.

-18-

2026:HHC:39533

29. The writ petitions are allowed and disposed of in the

aforesaid terms. All pending application(s), if any, also stand

disposed of.

(Vivek Singh Thakur)

Judge

(Ranjan Sharma)

Judge

16

th

September, 2026

(Pardeep)