Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1317

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Ranjan Sharma, J.
Vikas Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and another - Respondents
CWPOA No.3530 of 2020
Decided On : 12-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Pooja Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Ravinder Singh Chandel, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General.

Faultless employee denied appointment due to employer's reservation error entitled to full actual monetary benefits from retrospective date; notional condition quashed; deemed regular service counts for higher pay scale; 'no work no pay' inapplicable. (38 words)

Headnote:(A) Fundamental Rule 17(1) - Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Category/Post-wise Revised Pay) Rules, 2012 - Notifications dated 28.09.2012 and 14.01.2015 - Service Law - Retrospective appointment as constable w.e.f. date of original recruitment - Condition of notional benefits only quashed as illegal when denial of appointment due to employer's fault in misapplying reservation norms - Employee entitled to full actual financial benefits, pay and allowances from retrospective date despite late joining; 'no work no pay' principle inapplicable; FR 17 not attracted as employee not absent but wrongly ousted - Regular/deemed service from retrospective date counts for higher pay scale (Rs.10300-34800+3200 GP) after 2 years regular service w.e.f. date analogous to counterparts; 2015 notification substituting 2-year to 8-year eligibility does not divest accrued rights under 2012 rules; parity mandated to avoid discrimination under Articles 14, 16; entitlements protected under Article 300A. (Paras 9, 9(ii), 9(iii), 10, 11, 11(ii), 11(iii))

(B) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 300A - Equals cannot be treated unequally; anomaly in pay fixation vis-à-vis juniors from same recruitment entitled to higher fixation after 2 years impermissible; retrospective regular appointment restores all consequential service benefits including monetary arrears. (Paras 9(ii), 13)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner qualified selection for constable post under unreserved OBC category in 2010 recruitment but denied appointment due to wrong reservation roster application favouring others; writ court quashed wrong appointments, directed petitioner's appointment against unreserved post with all consequential benefits; authorities appointed w.e.f. actual joining date then antedated to original recruitment date but restricted to notional fixation, actual pay from joining, denied higher scale after 2 years as given to others from same batch.

Findings of Court:
Notional condition quashed; full monetary benefits w.e.f. 07.01.2011 to actual joining; higher pay scale w.e.f. 07.01.2013 (after 2 years) with arrears; all consequential benefits within 6 weeks, 6% interest on delay.

Issues: Validity of notional benefits condition and denial of actual pay despite retrospective appointment; applicability of FR 17 and 'no work no pay'; counting of deemed service for 2-year higher pay eligibility under 2012 rules; parity with batchmates/juniors.

Ratio Decidendi: Where employee faultless and employer erred in denying timely appointment, retrospective orders entitle full benefits restoring position vis-à-vis equals; notional denial penalises employee for employer's wrong, violates equality; 'regular service' includes deemed service from retrospective date, not requiring actual physical work; precedents affirm monetary entitlements on retrospective promotion/appointment sans fault.

Result: Petition allowed; directions issued.

Table of Content
1. wrongful reservation led to delayed constable appointment. (Para 2)
2. demand for actual financial benefits from 2011. (Para 3)
3. respondents defend via fr17 and service rules. (Para 4 , 5)
4. petitioner rebuts fr17; seeks full service benefits. (Para 6)
5. review of statutes and pay revision notifications. (Para 7 , 8)
6. precedents mandate monetary benefits retrospectively. (Para 9)
7. fr17 inapplicable to employer-fault delays. (Para 10)
8. deemed regular service counts for higher pay. (Para 11 , 12)
9. pay parity required with similarly placed juniors. (Para 13)
10. quash notional condition; grant all benefits. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Petitioner-Vikas Kumar, a Constable under the State Authorities has come up before this Court, seeking the following relief(s):

“a. That the impugned instructions dated 15.07.2017 Annexure A-4 being illegal may very kindly be quashed and set aside.

b. That the respondents may very kindly be directed to grant actual financial benefits to the applicant similar to the persons appointed through same recruitment process and from the same date as has been extended to them as per Annexure A-7 and other consequential benefits.

c. That respondents may very kindly be directed to pay the arrear of pay scale and other related financial benefits along with interest @ 12% per annum to the applicant.”

FACTUAL MATRIX IN EARLIER ROUND OF LITIGATION IN CWP No 7214 OF 2010 DECIDED ON 11.12.2014:

2. Case set by Learned Counsel is that the Respondents 1 and 2 commenced the recruitment process for filling-up the posts of Constable during the year 2010. Petitioner being OBC-Unreserved, applied for the post of Constable under OBC-UR category. As per the recruitment norms, petitioner faced selection process at different stages including physical efficiency test, written test and the interview conducted by the Selection Committee constituted by the respondents. However, to the dismay of the petitioner, the Respondents 1 and 2, appointed one Shri Honey Kumar [Respondent No.4 in CWP No. 7214 of 2010] against OBC Unreserved post and one Sh. Mahender Singh [Respondent No.5 in CWP No. 7214 of 2010 against the reserved posts of Constable meant for OBC IRDP] on 07.01.2011 by wrongly applying reservation norms. Feeling aggrieved, against wrongful selection and appointment of the Respondents 4 and 5 as Constable on 07.01.2011, the petitioner filed a CWP No.7214 of 2010, Vikas Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others , decided on 11.12.2014, {Annexure A-1}, and in Para 12 of the said judgment, the selection and appointment of respondents 4 and 5 {Honey Kumar and Mahender Singh} was set-aside; with directions to the State Authorities to consider and appoint the petitioner on the post of Police Constable against OBC-Unreserved post; with further directions that the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. In Para 17 of judgment, the Court left it open for the State Authorities to consider the desirability of not dispensing with the services of Respondents 4 and 5 by creating a supernumerary post or adjusting them against any of future vacancy. Pursuant to the passing of judgment on 11.12.2014, Annexure A-1, in CWP No. 7214 of 2010 [supra], Commandant 1st India Reserve Battalion, Bangarh, District Una issued an office order on 18.4.2015, Annexure A-2, appointing the petitioner as Constable with immediate effect, in the pay scale of Rs. 5910-20200+1900 Grade Pay. Based on this, the petitioner joined as Constable on 18.04.2015 under Commandant 1st IRBn, Bangarh, District Una. After joining as such, the petitioner made a representation to Commandant IRBn on 21.05.2015, Annexure A-3 and on 04.11.2016, Annexure A-3 [Colly] requesting to give appointment and financial benefits from the date other similarly placed constables who were recommended /appointed on 07.01.2011, in terms of the judgment. Since nothing was done, therefore, the petitioner filed an Execution Petition No. 73 of 2017 and