Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2923

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, J
B.R. Thakur – Appellant
Versus
H.P. State Electricity Board – Respondent
CWPOA No.3703 of 2019 | CWPOA No.3336 of 2019

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sunil Mohan Goel, Paras Dhaulta
For the Respondents: Ravinder Thakur

An employer cannot deny an employee Time Bound Promotional benefits on the technical ground of failure to exercise an option if the employer failed to obtain such an option or provide the employee with the requisite choice to retain an eligible pay scale.

Headnote:(A) Time Bound Promotional Scale - Grant of - Requirement of option - Petitioner appointed as Divisional Accountant in pay scale of 1880-3300 - Respondent-Board later revised pay scale and forced petitioner into higher scale without seeking option, despite previous request to retain original lower scale which carried benefit of promotional scale - Obligatory for employer to seek option from employee before fixing pay - Failure to seek option or grant benefit of promotional scale upon petitioner's retention in lower scale deemed illegal and arbitrary - Court held that after correcting petitioner's pay to original scale, denial of promotional benefits on completion of 9/16 years of service was unsustainable. (Paras 4, 7, 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Divisional Accountant (re-designated as Superintendent), sought the qashing of an order denying him Time Bound Promotional Scales on completion of 9 and 16 years of service. The Board had introduced schemes for promotional scales but conditioned them on specific pay scale options. The petitioner contended he was never provided the opportunity to exercise these options and was fixed in revised scales arbitrarily, leading to the denial of promised promotional benefits.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the employer failed to seek necessary options from the employee and that the employee had consistently sought to remain in the pay scale eligible for promotional benefits. Technicalities regarding the failure to exercise an option that was never formally offered cannot override the right to promotional scales.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to the Time Bound Promotional Scale despite the respondent-Board's claim that he failed to opt for the relevant pay scale.

Ratio Decidendi: An employer cannot deny promotional benefits due to an employee's failure to exercise an option if the employer failed to formally notify the employee or seek that option. Administrative technicalities cannot defeat the grant of substantial justice to an employee.

Result: Petitions allowed.

________________________________________H____________________

1. CWPOA No.3703 of 2019

B.R. Thakur ...Petitioner

Versus

H.P. State Electricity Board ...Respondent

_____________________________________________________________

2. CWPOA No.3336 of 2019

B.R. Thakur ...Petitioner

Versus

H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. ...Respondent

_____________________________________________________________

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge

Whe ther approved for reporting?

hFor the petitioner(s): Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior

Advocate, with Mr. Paras Dhaulta, g Advocate.

iFor the respondent(s): Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate.

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge

1. Both the abovementioned petitions are taken up together since the relief claimed in the petitions is with respect of grant of Time Bound Promotional/Devised Promotional Scale(s) on completion of 9/16 years’ service, respectively.

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2026 13:36:39 :::CIS

2. In CWPOA No.3703 of 2019, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 23.09.2005, passed by the respondent-Board, whereby his claim for grant of Time Bound Promotional/Devised Promotional Scale on completion of 9 years’ service has been denied and in CWPOA No.3703 of 2019, he has prayed for grant of Time Bound Promotional/Devised Promotional Scale on completion of 16 years’ service.

3. For deciding the dispute, the facts mentioned in CWPOA No.3703 of 2019 are taken and the relief claimed in this petition is reproduced hereunder:

“i) That the impugned Annexure:A-22, dated 23.9.2005 may be quashed and set aside;

ii) That the respondent Board may be directed to implement letter dated 1.7.2004 i.e. Annexure:A-19 in its entirety and to grant the applicant the Time Bound Promotional/Devised Promotional Scale on completion of 9 years’ service;

iii) That the respondent Board may be directed to release the First Time Bound Promotional/Devised Promotional Scale of Rs.7750-13300 to the applicant w.e.f. 19.2.2003 and to pay arrears thereof alongwith interest @18% per annum;”

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts of the case are that the petitioner was promoted as Divisional Accountant (in short ‘DA’) which post was subsequently re-designated as Superintendent (D/ACS), vide ofÏce order dated 07.01.1994, in the pay scale of ₹1880-3300/- (Master scale of ₹750-6700/-), on which post he joined his duties on 19.02.1994. The respondent- Board had introduced a scheme, vide ofÏce order dated 31.01.1991 applicable w.e.f. 01.01.1986, for granting Time Bound Promotional Scales on completion of 9/16 years’ service, which were also made applicable to the category of DA w.e.f. 01.01.1986. As per ofÏce order dated 30.05.1994, the master pay scale of ₹750-6700 was revised to ₹770-6700 w.e.f. 01.11.1993 and pay scale of DAs was increased from ₹1880-3300/- to ₹1900-3300/- without obtaining option. The pay scale of the petitioner was fixed in the revised master pay scale of ₹1900-3300/- vide ofÏce order dated 20.08.1994, without obtaining option from him. The petitioner immediately made a representation to retain the old master/pay scale of ₹1880-3300/- and the pay fixed earlier vide order dated 20.08.1994 was re-fixed vide order dated 28.10.1994 in the pay scale of ₹1880-3300/-(Annexure A-4). Thereafter, vide ofÏce order dated 05.01.1995 (Annexure A-5), the pay scale of ₹1880-3300/- was revised w.e.f. 01.01.1986 to ₹2000-3500/-. Though the pay scale of the petitioner was revised from ₹1880-3300 to ₹2000-3500/-, but the competent authority of the respondent-Board had issued another order dated 27.01.1995 (Annexure A-6), whereby pay scale of the petitioner, which was already fixed, was directed to remain unchanged i.e. in the pay scale of ₹1880-3300/-. Thereafter, vide ofÏce order dated 04.12.1996 (Annexure A-7), it was ordered that the respondent-Board allowed an opportunity of opti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2923

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLAJiya Lal Bhardwaj, JB.R. Thakur – AppellantVersusH.P. State Electricity Board – RespondentCWPOA No.3703 of 2019 | CWPOA No.3336 of 2019

An employer cannot deny an employee Time Bound Promotional benefits on the technical ground of failure to exercise an option if the employer failed to obtain such an option or provide the employee with the requisite choice to retain an eligible pay scale.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, J
B.R. Thakur – Appellant
Versus
H.P. State Electricity Board – Respondent
CWPOA No.3703 of 2019 | CWPOA No.3336 of 2019