IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.307 of 2026

Date of Decision: 06.01.2026

_____________________________________________________________________ Sonika Sood & Anr. ……...Petitioners

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, fJudge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioners: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate

General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish

Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General.

______________________u_____________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate

General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the

respon dents.

2. Taking into consideration the order impugned herein, decision rendered in CWP No.4830 of 2023, titled as Inder Singh Thakur & Ors Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. along with connected matters, decided on 07.04.2025, 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.

3. Petitioners had instituted CWP No.10296 of 2025, titled as Sonika Sood & Anr. Vs. State of H.P. and Ors., seeking

applicability of Inder Singh Thakur (supra). The writ petition was disposed of on 27.06.2025 with directions to the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioners in light of Inder Singh Thakur (supra) by passing appropriate orders in accordance with law within a time frame.

4. Pursuant to the directions issued in Sonika Sood (supra), respondents passed consideration order on 04.12.2025, rejecting the cases of the petitioners. Accortding to the respondents, petitioners had completed two years of regular service on 02.06.2019 and 03.06.2019, respectively. 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.

5. The aforesaid reasoning has already been turned down in Inder Singh Thakur (supra). Paras from Inder Singh Thakur H(supra), 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 notific.ation dated

03.01.2022 promulgating Revised Pay Rules, 2022, being relevant is extracted hereinafter….XXXXXXXXXXXXX Services of petitioners having been regulaHrized during the year 2019 &

2020 fall within the ambit of Revised Pay Rules, 2022.

In view of clear provisions of Refvised Pay Rules, 2022, notified on 03.01.2022, as amended ono 06.09.2022, the stand of the respondents that notification dated 03.01.2022 and more specifically its amendment under notification dated 06.09.2022 will not be applicable to those employees who were in regular service prior to 03.01.2022, cannot be countenanced. Mechanism for fixing the revised pay of the regular Government employees recruited/appointed before 01.01.2016 has been provided under Rule 7(1), whereas fixation of pay of regular Government employees recruited/appointed on or after 01.01.2016 is to be carried out as per Rule 7(II)