IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 750 of 2026

Decided on: 08.01.2026

Rajiv Rathore and others …..Petitioners

Versus

State of H.P and others . ....Respondents

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioners: Mr. Kush Sharma and Mr. Jagmohan

Sharma, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Mr. L.N. Sharma,

Additional Advocates General.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional

gAdvocate General, appears and waives service of notice on

ibehalf of the respondents.

Taking into consideration the order impugned

herein, decision rendered in Inder Singh Thakur & Ors Vs. State of H.P. & Ors, 2CWP No.4830/2023, decided on 07.04.2025 a/w connected matters., submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the order being passed hereinafter, reply to this writ petition is not required to be called from the respondents. With consent of learned

counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage.

1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

Vs. State of H.P. and others, 3CWP No.15205/2025, decided on 22.09.2025., seeking applicability of Inder Singh Thakur, 2. Petitioners had instituted Rajiv Rathore & Ors.. The writ petition was disposed of on 22.09.2025 with directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in light of Inder Singh Thakur by passing appropriate orders in accordafnce with law within a time frame.

Pursuant to the directions issued in Rajiv Rathore³, respondents passed consideration order on 18.12.2025 (Annexure P-7), rejecting the case of the petitioners with the following reasoning: -

“Accordingly, in compliance of H.P Civil Service Category/Post wise Revised Pay rules, 2012, the revised pay band+ grade pay of 10300-34800+GP 5000 were granted to the petitioner on completion of two years of regular service and arrear accrued on account of grant of this pay scale, arrear has also been released to the petitioner accordingly.

Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for the revised pay from the (Revised pay) 1^st amendment Rules, 2022 notification on 06.09.2022. Accordingly, after considering the fact on record in particular the fact that petitioners have availed the Grade pay in pre-revised scale. Hence, the representation of the petitioner is considered and disposed of accordingly.”

According to the respondents, petitioners have completed two years of regular service on 01.04.2020. They were granted revised Pay Band + Grade Pay in compliance to the H.P. Civil Services (Category/Postwise Revised Pay) Rules, 2012, therefore, petitioners were not held entitled to the benefits flowing from Revised Pay Scale, 2022, notified on 06.09.2022

3. The aforesaid reasoning has already been turned down in Inder Singh Thakur². Parasf rom Inder Singh Thakur², relevant in the context of reasoning given by the respondents for rejecting the cases of the petitioners, are as under: -

“4(iv). The notification dated 03.01.2022 promulgoating the Revised Pay Rules, 2022 w.e.f. 01.01.2016, does not stipulate that those who were aCppointed on regular basis prior to 03.01.2022, are to be excluded from the purview of the said notification. In fact, Rule 7 of the Revised Pay Rules, 2022, notified on 03.01.2022 provides the mechanism for fixation of pay in the revised pay structure. Rule 7(I) provides for fixation of pay of Government employees recruited/appointed before 01.01.2016, whereas Rule 7(II) of the notification dated 03.01.2022 provides for fixation of pay of regular 4 Government employees recruited/appointed on or after 01.01.2016 till the date of issuance of the notification. Rule 7 of notification dated 03.01.2022 promulgating Revised Pay Rules, 2022, being relevant is extracted hereinafter….XXXXXXXXXXXXX Services of petitioners having been regularized dur