IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.24 of 2026

Decided on: 05.01.2026

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

Jeewan Kumar …..Petitioner

Versus

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

-----------------------------------------------o--------------------------------------

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal tDua

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the Petitioner: Mr. Rocky and Mr. Sourav Sharma,

o Advocates.

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant

Advocate General.

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

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Notice. Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, learned Assistant

Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on

Hbehalf 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

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.

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.

2. Petitioner had instituted Jeewan Ku.mar Vs.

State of H.P. and Ors3, seeking applicability of Inder Singh Thakur2. The writ petition was disposed of on 09.07.2025 with directions to the respondents oto consider the case of the petitioner in light of Inder Singh Thakur2 by passing appropriate orders in accordance with law within a time frame. u Purosuant to the directions issued in Jeewan Kumar3, respondents passed consideration order on 16.10.2025, rejecting the case of the petitioner with the hfollowing reasoning: -

“ Whereas the petitioner has granted the higher pay band i.e. 10300-34800+4200 after two years of i regular service on dated 26.05.2019 and he has opted H 15% of the existing pay at the time of pay revision w.e.f.

01.01.2016. Therefore, the claim of the above petitioner in CWP No. 10845/2025 is not found similar to the CWP No.4830/2023 titled as Inder Singh Thakur & Anr. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. Therefore, he is not entitled for higher pay scale i.e. Rs.37600/- Level 8, Cell 9 (H.P.

Pay Revision Rule, 2022).

Accordingly, the representation of the above petitioner has been considered and is hereby rejected.”

3 CWP No. 10846 of 2025, decided on 09.07.2025

According to the respondents, petitioner had completed two years of regular service on 26.05.2019. He was granted revised Pay Band + Grade Pay in comp.liance to the H.P. Civil Services (Category/Postwise Revised Pay) Rules, 2022, therefore, petitioner was not h eld entitled to the benefits flowing from Revised Pay oScale, 2022.

3. The aforesaid reasoning has already been turned down in Inder Singh Thakur2. Paras from Inder Singh Thakur2, relevant inu 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 hstipulate 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 regularized during the year 2019 & 2020 fall within the ambit of Revised Pay Rules, 2022.