The Himachal Pradesh High Court reaffirms the applicability of the Revised Pay Rules, 2022 to employees regularized after the rules’ promulgation, holding that denial of such benefits is discriminatory; follows and clarifies its prior decision in Mohit Sharma v. State of H.P., confirming binding authority for similarly placed employees 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 |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts of Himachal Pradesh; strong persuasive value elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms and clarifies Mohit Sharma v. State of H.P. and Others (CWP No.1638 of 2024) |
| Type of Law | Service Law; Public Employment; Interpretation of Pay Rules |
| Questions of Law | Whether regularized employees (irrespective of prior contractual/temporary service) are entitled to Revised Pay Rules, 2022 benefits post-regularization, even if regularization occurs after their promulgation. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that once a contractual/temporary employee attains regular status, they become part of the regular stream of service and become entitled to the benefits under the Revised Pay Rules, 2022. Denial of such benefits based on the date of regularization (post-promulgation) is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. The Court clarified the correct interpretation of the rules and directed that eligibility must be strictly determined in accordance with the Mohit Sharma precedent. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Mohit Sharma v. State of H.P. and Others (CWP No.1638 of 2024) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The logic centres on equality — creating two pay scales among regular employees doing the same work is discriminatory. “Equals cannot be treated as unequal.” |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner completed two years of contractual service in 2022 and was regularized in 2023. His claim for higher pay scale was rejected on the ground that he was not regular as of 30.09.2021, but the Court found this approach was not in consonance with the law laid down in Mohit Sharma (supra) and directed reconsideration. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities in Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, administrative tribunals, and public employers outside Himachal Pradesh |
| Follows | Mohit Sharma v. State of H.P. and Others (CWP No.1638 of 2024) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that regularized employees (originally contractual/temporary) are entitled to post-regularization benefits under the Revised Pay Rules, 2022, regardless of the date of their regularization.
- Clarifies that denying pay revision benefits to such employees on the ground that they acquired regular status after the rules came into force violates Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution.
- Directs authorities to conduct a fresh eligibility analysis strictly in the light of Mohit Sharma (supra), disallowing any arbitrary distinctions.
- The presence of Rule 7(A) does not restrict benefits only to those regularized before the rules’ notification date.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court scrutinized the respondents’ order denying the petitioner benefits under the Revised Pay Rules, 2022, finding that it misconstrued the binding precedent in Mohit Sharma (supra).
- In Mohit Sharma (supra), the Coordinate Bench had unambiguously held that, upon regularization, employees become part of the regular stream and are entitled to pay benefits under the 2022 Rules. No distinction between employees regularized before or after the notification date is legally permissible.
- Rule 7(A) of the Rules extends benefit to contractual appointees who are regularized, without embargo related to the date of regularization, as long as the eligibility conditions are met.
- Any interpretation creating classes within the regular stream is discriminatory and contravenes Articles 14 and 16; equal pay for equal work is emphasized.
- The Court directed reconsideration of the petitioner’s case strictly as per these guidelines.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The impugned order wrongly denies revised pay scale benefits in violation of the Mohit Sharma precedent.
- The petitioner completed the required period of contractual service and was regularized in accordance with applicable rules.
- Denial of benefits is discriminatory and arbitrary.
Respondents
- The petitioner was not a regular appointee as of 30.09.2021, and thus not covered by the Mohit Sharma precedent or the Revised Pay Rules, 2022.
- The benefits of the revised pay scale are not available to contractual appointees regularized after the promulgation date.
Factual Background
The petitioner completed two years of contractual service in 2022 and was subsequently regularized in 2023. He sought higher pay scale benefits post-regularization under the Revised Pay Rules, 2022, citing the decision in Mohit Sharma (supra). His representation was rejected on the grounds that he was not a regular employee as of 30.09.2021, the relevant date specified in the respondent’s interpretation. The petitioner challenged this rejection before the High Court.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court construed the Revised Pay Rules, 2022, specifically Rule 7(A), holding that its benefits accrue to all regular employees, regardless of the timing of their regularization, so long as they were appointed before 03.01.2022.
- The Court rejected a restrictive reading of the rules that would differentiate between employees regularized before or after the rules’ notification.
- Any such restrictive interpretation is violative of the Constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 16.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment follows and clarifies the existing precedent of Mohit Sharma v. State of H.P. and Others.