Employees Appointed Under Old Rules Entitled to Old Pay Scales Despite Later Regularization Under New Rules: Himachal Pradesh High Court - 2025-09-28

Date of Regularization Cannot Justify Pay Disparity in a Single Cadre: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Shimla, HP – In a significant ruling on service law, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that employees appointed under old service rules are entitled to the corresponding pay scales, and their subsequent regularization under new rules cannot be a ground to deny them pay parity with their counterparts. The court emphasized that creating two different pay scales within a single, homogeneous class of employees performing identical duties amounts to hostile discrimination.

The judgment was delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma in the case of Daljeet Singh Verma vs. State of HP , involving ex-servicemen re-employed as Assistant Librarians.

---

Case Background: A Tale of Two Pay Scales

The petitioners, Daljeet Singh Verma and three others, were appointed as Assistant Librarians on a contract basis in February 2009. They were subsequently regularized in 2015 and 2016. Upon regularization, they were placed in the pay scale of ₹5910-20200 with a ₹2400 Grade Pay.

The crux of their grievance was that other Assistant Librarians in the same department, performing the exact same duties, were receiving a much higher University Grants Commission (UGC) pay scale of ₹15600-39100 with a ₹6000 Grade Pay. This higher scale had been granted to their counterparts following earlier court rulings in Madan Lal Tomar and V.D. Saraswati . The petitioners argued that denying them this scale violated the principle of "equal pay for equal work."

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioners' Stance: - Represented by Advocate Vikas Rajput, the petitioners contended they belong to the same homogeneous class of Assistant Librarians as those receiving the UGC scale. - They argued that the mere date of their regularization cannot be a valid reason to create a distinction and deny them pay parity. - Crucially, they cited the precedent set in Rakesh Kumar and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh , where a Coordinate Bench had already decided an identical issue in favor of the employees, a judgment that was subsequently upheld in appeal and implemented by the state.

State's Defense: - The State of Himachal Pradesh, represented by Additional Advocate General Gobind Korla, argued that the petitioners were regularized after the notification of new Recruitment and Promotion Rules in July 2010. - According to the State, these new rules prescribed the lower pay scale, and the petitioners were rightly governed by them. The higher UGC scale, they claimed, was a "personal measure" only for those appointed under the old 1973 rules.

Court's Analysis: Upholding Parity and Precedent

Justice Ranjan Sharma found the State's position legally untenable. The court heavily relied on the reasoning established in the Rakesh Kumar case, which had already settled the matter.

The court's analysis highlighted several key principles: 1. Prospective Application of Rules: The new rules notified in 2010 were prospective in nature. They could not be applied retrospectively to take away the vested rights of the petitioners, whose selection process and initial appointment in 2009 occurred under the old 1973 rules. 2. No Valid Classification: The State failed to provide any reasonable basis for classifying Assistant Librarians into two groups with different pay scales. The court noted: > "Nothing has been placed on record, to prove that grant of different pay scales to Assistant Librarians... is based on a valid and legally tenable classification... In absence of any such material on record, the petitioners cannot be put to a hostile discrimination, between one homogeneous class of Assistant Librarians." 3. One Cadre, One Scale: The judgment reinforced that it is impermissible to have two different pay scales for members of the same cadre who perform the same work, duties, and functions. The court termed the state's action as "treating equals as unequal." 4. Binding Precedent: The court observed that the core issue had already been adjudicated in the Rakesh Kumar case. Since that judgment was upheld by a larger bench and implemented, the state was bound to extend the same benefit to the petitioners.

Final Verdict and Directions

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the state's order denying the higher pay scale to the petitioners. The court issued the following directions:

• The State authorities are directed to grant the petitioners the pay scale of ₹10300-34800 + ₹3600 GP from 01.01.2006, and the revised UGC pay scale of ₹15600-39100 + ₹6000 GP, bringing them at par with their counterparts in the V.D. Saraswati and Rakesh Kumar cases.
• Pay fixation will be done notionally from the due date. However, actual monetary benefits are restricted to the three years preceding the filing of the petition (11.07.2018), in line with Supreme Court precedent on arrears.
• The state has been mandated to release all admissible benefits within six weeks, failing which it will be liable to pay interest at 6% per annum.