IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.236 of 2026

Decided on: 06.01.2026

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

Rajeev Kaushal and Ors. …..Petitioners

Versus

State of H.P. and Anr .... .Respondents

------------------------------------------------------f-------------------------------

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the Petitioners: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant

oAdvocate General.

-----------

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

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Notice. Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, learned Assistant

Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on

behalf of the respondents.

Taking into consideration the order impugned

herein, decision rendered in Inder Singh Thakur & Ors Vs. State of H.P. & Ors2, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the order being passed hereinafter, reply to this writ petition is not required to be

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

2 CWP No. 4830 of 2023, decided alongwith connected matter on 07.04.2025.

called from the respondents. With consent of learned

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

2. Petitioners had instituted Rajeev Kaushal and Ors Vs. State of H.P. and Ors³, seeking applicability of Inder Singh Thakur2. The writ petition was disposed of on 30.05.2025 with directions to the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners in ligoht of Inder Singh Thakur2 by passing appropriate orde rs in accordance with law within a time frame.

Pursuanut to the directions issued in Rajeev Kumar3, respoondents passed consideration order on 10.12.2025, rejecting the cases of the petitioners with the following reasoning:-

h “Accordingly, in compliance of HP 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 services. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for the revised pay from the (Revised pay 1 amendment Rules, 2022 notification on 06.09.2022. Accordingly, after considering the fact on record in particular the fact that petitioners have already availed the Grade pay in pre-revised scale. Hence, the

3 CWP No. 8992 of 2025, decided alongwith connected matters on 30.05.2025

representation of the petitioner is considered and disposed of accordingly.”

According to the respondents, petitioners had completed two years of regular service on 01..06.2019, 02.06.2019, 15.06.2020 and 20.12.2016. They were granted revised Pay Band + Grade Pay in compliance to the H.P. Civil Services (Category/Posto-wise Revised Pay) Rules, 2012, therefore, petitioners were not held entitled to the benefits flowing from Revised Pay Scale, 2022 notified on

06.09.2022. u

3. The aforesaid reasoning has already been turned down in Inder Singh Thakur2. Paras from 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 promulgating the Revised Pay Rules, 2022 w.e.f. 01.01.2016, does not stipulate that those who were appointed 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 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 reg