##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.36 of 2026 Reserved on : 20.07.2026 Decided on : 24.07.2026 Uploaded on : 24.07.2026 HPSEBL and Anr. ...appellants.

Versus Narender Kumar …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the appellants : Ms. Sunita Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr.

Aman Hansretta, Advocate.

For the respondent(s) : Mr. Surender Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sidharth Negi, Advocate.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 01.07.2025, passed in CWP No.8150 of 2024, titled Narender Kumar versus HP State Electricity Board Limited and another, vide which the writ petition preferred by the present respondent, has been allowed.

2. The present appellants were the respondent in CWP No.8150 of 2024, decided on 01.07.2025, wherefrom the present appeal arises. The grievance raised therein by the writ

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

petitioner/present respondent was with respect to rejection of a representation dated 02.05.2024 preferred by the writ petitioner (Annexure P-3 page 85 of the paper book) vide letter dated 30.05.2024 (Annexure P-4 page 86 of the present paper book). In the representation so filed, the writ petitioner/present respondent had categorically asserted that on revision of pay scales with effect from 01.01.2016, notified vide office order No.1 dated 12.4.2022 (Annexure R-1 at page 105 of the paper book) the writ petitioner/present respondent had exercised an option to come over to the revised pay scales with effect from 01.01.2016 by a multiple factor of 2.59.

3. Further, in the representation, it was categorically asserted by the writ petitioner/present respondent that the revised pay band was notified vide office order No.8 dated 08.07.2022 (Annexure R-V at page 130 of the paper book)for some categories applicable with effect from 01.10.2012.After issuance of the revised pay band, i.e., Annexure R-V, the writ petitioner/present respondent contended that he failed to exercise an option with respect to 15% hike from the date of his promotion to the post of Senior Assistant on 01.05.2017 as, according to the writ petitioner/present respondent, the order regarding revised pay band (Annexure R- V) was not in his notice.

4. As a consequence whereof, in the representation, it has been submitted that juniors of the writ petitioner, who had exercised option with respect to 15% hike as applicable to them are drawing a higher salary. Hence, a consideration of the case of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances narrated was sought in order to enable the writ petitioner/present respondent to exercise an option with respect to 15% hike with effect from 01.05.2017, i.e., date of promotion to the post of Senior Assistant.

5. The aforesaid representation was rejected vide letter dated 30.05.2024 (Annexure P-4 at page 86 of the paper book). In the rejection, the reason for rejection cited was that with respect to revised pay scale of employees with effect from 01.01.2016, vide office order bearing No. 1 dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure R -1, page 105 of the paper book) an opportunity to exercise option had been given initially for two months in terms of Clause 6 of Regulation dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure R-1 page 105 of the paper book) and further extensions were granted vide office order No.7 dated 08.06.2022, office order No.10 dated 23.07.2022, and office order No.11 dated

15.09.2022 (collectively appended along with as Annexure-IV from page 124 to 128 along with the reply filed by the present appellants/respondents before the Writ Court). Besides the aforesaid in the rejection letter it had been stated that in terms of order No.8 dated 08.07.2022 employees had been given an opportunity to revise their option.

6. In view thereof, it was submitted that time to