The Himachal Pradesh High Court reaffirms that once contractual employees are regularized, they are entitled to benefits under the Revised Pay Rules, 2022, post-regularization—even if their regular appointment occurs after the rules’ notification date. This decision upholds the precedent set in Mohit Sharma v. State of H.P., ensuring no discriminatory pay practices among regular employees and is binding on all subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/16191/2025 of ISHAN SHARMA Vs CHAUDHARY SARWAN KUMAR HP KRISHI VISHWAVIDYALYA |
| CNR | HPHC010613972025 |
| Date of Registration | 13-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Mohit Sharma v. State of H.P. (2024), CWP No.1638 of 2024 |
| Type of Law | Service Law, Pay Revision, Employment Regularization |
| Questions of Law | Whether regularized employees—previously contractual—are entitled to benefits under Revised Pay Rules, 2022, notwithstanding the date of regularization. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that the Revised Pay Rules, 2022 apply to all employees who attain regular status, irrespective of their previous contractual or temporary nature. Denial of benefits based solely on the prior nature of appointment or the date of regularization—post notification of the rules—would amount to discriminatory treatment, incompatible with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The benefits under Rule 7(A) are available for employees who fulfill the stipulated service conditions after regularization as per the rules. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Mohit Sharma v. State of H.P. & Others, CWP No.1638 of 2024 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner’s case for grant of higher pay was rejected by the respondents on the ground of non-applicability, as he was not regularized by 30.09.2021. The petitioner, having rendered continuous contractual service, was regularized in 2023. The authority’s rejection failed to properly apply the principle laid out in Mohit Sharma (supra). |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering similar service law and pay revision issues |
| Follows | Mohit Sharma v. State of H.P. & Others, CWP No.1638 of 2024 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms employees’ right to parity in pay upon regularization, regardless of their prior contractual/temporary service.
- Clarifies that benefits under Revised Pay Rules, 2022, accrue to employees after regularization, even if regularization occurs post-notification of the rules.
- Explicitly prohibits creation of classes within regular employees based on dates of regularization or prior status, to maintain equality under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution.
- Mandates authorities to examine service history accurately and apply rules without discrimination.
- Cites Mohit Sharma (2024) as the authoritative precedent for service law pay entitlements in Himachal Pradesh.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court observed that the impugned rejection failed to apply the principle established in Mohit Sharma v. State of H.P. (2024).
- It relied extensively on Mohit Sharma (supra), which held that once employees are regularized, the Revised Pay Rules, 2022, apply to them irrespective of their earlier contractual or temporary status.
- The judgment emphasized that the rules do not permit discrimination among regular employees on the basis of previous service status or date of regular appointment.
- The Court directly quoted relevant paragraphs from Mohit Sharma (supra), interpreting Rule 7(A) as applicable to all appointees before 03.01.2022, who fulfill the required conditions after regularization.
- It concluded that reading the rules otherwise would result in an unconstitutional classification, violating Articles 14 and 16, and would amount to unequal pay for equal work.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Argued that the rejection of benefits was not in conformity with the authoritative Mohit Sharma (supra) judgment.
- Sought higher pay scale benefits under the Revised Pay Rules, 2022, upon regularization.
- Highlighted that denial based on the date of regularization and prior contractual status was impermissible.
Respondents
- Rejected the petitioner’s claim on grounds that he was not a regular appointee as of 30.09.2021.
- Argued that the Revised Pay Rules, 2022, apply only to those already holding regular posts as of the cut-off date.
Factual Background
The petitioner was initially appointed on a contractual basis and completed two years of contractual service in 2022. His services were regularized in 2023. Upon seeking benefits under the Revised Pay Rules, 2022, his representation was rejected by the respondent authority on the basis that he was not a regular employee as of the stipulated cut-off date. The petitioner contended that such rejection contravened the binding precedent set in Mohit Sharma (2024), prompting him to challenge the order before the High Court.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court interpreted the Revised Pay Rules, 2022, and specifically Rule 7(A), as applicable to all regular employees—regardless of when regularization occurred—as long as conditions therein are met post-regularization.
- Emphasized that the wording in Rule 7(A) does not distinguish between regular and contractual appointees prior to 03.01.2022.
- Invoked Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution to reinforce equal treatment in pay among regular employees.
- Clarified that exclusion based solely on the timing of regularization is not supported by the statutory language.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court dispensed with the need for reply from respondents in light of clear precedent and uncontroversial factual background.
- Directed expeditious reconsideration of the petitioner’s claim within three weeks.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment strictly follows and applies the established rule from Mohit Sharma v. State of H.P. (2024) regarding post-regularization benefits and equal pay under the Revised Pay Rules, 2022.