Balbir Singh Pathania vs STATE OF HP
- Court
- High Court of Himachal Pradesh
2026:HHC:47921
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
High Court of H.P.
CWPOA No.3677 of 2019
th
Decided on: 30 October, 2026
Balbir Singh Pathania ...Petitioner
versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge.
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
_______________________________________________
For the petitioner: Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. R.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate
General.
Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)
The petitioner by way of present petition has sought a
direction to the respondents to consider his case for regular
promotion to the post of Librarian with effect from 25.06.1998 in the
UGC pay scale of Librarian, since he was eligible and qualified to
hold the post strictly as per the University Grants Commission’s
Instructions and Notifications and even as per the Recruitment and
Promotion Rules with all consequential benefits along with interest
@12% per annum.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts of the case
are that the petitioner, who had obtained degree of Bachelor of
Library Science, Master of Arts and degree in Masters of Library and
1
Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 18:11:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:47921
2
Information was appointed as Assistant Librarian in Indira Gandhi
High Court of H.P.
Medical College (in short “IGMC”), where he joined his duties on
18.09.1993. Since the petitioner was possessing the requisite
qualification to hold the post of Librarian, respondent No.1 vide
office order dated 28.09.1999 (Annexure P-4) had accorded
approval for giving him additional charge of the post of Librarian in
respondent No.3-College in addition to his own duties and further he
was held entitled to the benefit of officiating allowance as admissible
under Fundamental Rule 49.
3. The petitioner who was possessing the qualification to
hold the post of Librarian made a representation to respondent No.3
for his promotion to the post of Librarian, which representation was
forwarded by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 on 27.04.2001
(Annexure P-5), specifically mentioning therein that the post of
Librarian is lying vacant since 25.11.1997 due to promotion of Shri
M.L.Verma as Librarian on ad hoc basis, who has been posted in Dr.
Rajendra Prasad Medical College, Tanda (in short “Dr.RPMC Tanda”)
against the newly created post and the post of Librarian is lying
vacant in IGMC since 25.06.1998 due to retirement of Shri N.K.
Gupta. Respondent No.2 on receipt of the representation made by
the petitioner took up the matter with respondent No.1, vide letter
dated on 29.03.2003 (Annexure P-10), reiterating the same facts
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 18:11:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:47921
3
and requested to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion
High Court of H.P.
as Librarian against the vacant post of Librarian on the analogy of
Shri M.L. Verma, Assistant Librarian, who was promoted vide
Government Notification dated 22.11.1997, so that the work of the
Central Library of IGMC Shimla does not suffer for want of adequate
staff as per the norms of the Medical Council of India.
4. Since no action was taken by respondent No.1, the
petitioner had approached the Himachal Pradesh Administrative
Tribunal (in short “Tribunal”) by way of Original Application No.2352
of 2003 seeking redressal of his grievances. Since the Original
Application was not decided, the petitioner made a representation to
respondent No.1 on 21.04.2007 (Annexure P-11) for considering him
for promotion to the post of Librarian in IGMC Shimla and he had
already made a representation dated 23.10.2002.The Original
Application preferred by the petitioner was transferred to this Court
after abolition of the Tribunal and this Court vide order dated
24.02.2011 had directed the respondents to finalize the Recruitment
and Promotion Rules (in short the ‘R&P Rules’), since it was
mentioned in the reply that there is a proposal for amendment in
the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the Librarian.
5. Even after the direction given by this Court to finalize
the R&P Rules, the proposal for amendment of the R&P Rules of the
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 18:11:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:47921
4
post of Librarian was not finalized and the petitioner had to
High Court of H.P.
approach this Court by way of a writ petition being CWP No.227 of
2014, titled, Balbir Singh Pathania vs. State of HP and others ,
which came to be disposed of on 30.06.2014 (Annexure P-19) with a
direction to the respondent-State to finalize the R&P Rules,
preferably within a period of 10 weeks, by publishing the same in
the official gazette.
6. After the direction given by this Court, respondent No.1
had notified the R&P Rules for the post of Librarian, Class-III (Non-
Gazetted) in the Department of Medical Education and Research
Himachal Pradesh, vide Notification dated 21.10.2014 (Annexure
P-20) and thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of
Librarian, vide office order dated 12.08.2015 (Annexure R-1).
7. The precise grievance of the petitioner as raised in the
writ petition and canvassed by Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate is that
since the petitioner was possessing the requisite qualification to hold
the post of Librarian, which was sanctioned and further he was even
given the charge of the said post, he is entitled to promotion to the
said post from the date when he was given the additional charge.
Further, the petitioner is also entitled to the UGC pay scale, more
particularly, when the respondent-State had granted the said scale
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 18:11:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:47921
5
to Shri M.L. Verma, Librarian vide order dated 20.06.2007 (Annexure
High Court of H.P.
P-12).
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that
similar benefits of UGC scales were extended to Shri Narendra
Kumar Gupta, who was earlier holding the post of Librarian in IGMC
Shimla and since the petitioner has also discharged the same duties,
functions and responsibilities, he is also entitled to the same
benefits, more particularly, when he is working and discharging his
duties on the post of Librarian in IGMC Shimla against a sanctioned
post.
9. The respondents filed reply to the petition and in
preliminary submissions averred that the R&P Rules to the post of
Librarian in the Medical Education Department have been finalized
and notified by the Government, vide Notification dated 21.10.2014,
by which, the pay scale of Librarian is Rs.10300-34800+3600 Grade
Pay. After notifying the R&P Rules, respondent No.2 had convened a
meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (in short ‘DPC’)
on 10.08.2015 and promoted the petitioner along with Shri Pradeep
Bahl, after completing all formalities to the post of Librarian. The
claim of the petitioner to treat him at par with those Librarians, who
are working in the Education Department for the purpose of pay
parity, is not justified and sustainable as every Department of the
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 18:11:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:47921
6
State has its own R&P Rules for the different posts and these
High Court of H.P.
employees are governed by the R&P Rules for the different posts
and these employees are governed by the R&P Rules for the
respective Departments accordingly. Hence, the question of granting
UGC scale to the petitioner does not arise. The principle of ‘equal
pay for equal work’ with reference to grant of pay scales has been
defined in clear terms by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further, this
Court in LPA No.11 of 2012, decided on 22.09.2014 has laid down
the principle that parity of pay scale cannot be claimed on the sole
ground of designation and there are other important factors which
are to be taken care of while determining the parity in pay scales.
On merits, a similar stand has been taken and prayer has been
made to dismiss the petition.
10. In rejoinder, the petitioner has specifically mentioned
that he is discharging the duties of Librarian right from 25.06.1998
i.e. after the retirement of the then Librarian Shri Narendra Kumar
Gupta, who was getting the UGC scale at the time of his retirement,
which was even revised from time to time. Further, it has been
averred that the respondents cannot adopt pick and choose policy
and it is settled law that there can't be two different pay scales for
one post in the same Department.
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 18:11:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:47921
7
11. I have heard Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, learned counsel for
High Court of H.P.
the petitioner and Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General
for the respondents and also perused the record carefully.
12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was possessing
the requisite qualification to hold the post of Librarian. It is also not
in dispute that the post of Librarian was sanctioned and lying vacant
and the petitioner was given the additional charge of the post of
Librarian. The petitioner has placed on record the order dated
20.06.2007 (Annexure P-12, page 31)), whereby Shri M.L. Verma,
Librarian, who was working in the Department of Medical Education,
Himachal Pradesh and serving in Dr. RPGMC, Tanda was granted the
UGC scale of Rs.8,000-13,500/- with effect from 01.01.1996.Once
the post of Librarian was sanctioned and lying vacant and further
the petitioner was possessing the requisite qualification to be
promoted to the said post, the action on the part of the respondents
in not promoting him to the post of Librarian from the due date is
not justified, more especially when earlier the posts was manned by
Sh. Narendra Kumar Gupta. This action on the part of the
respondents is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India.
13. As per the order passed by this Court, which is based
on the reply filed by the respondents to the Original Application, the
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 18:11:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:47921
8
stand of the respondent-State was only that the proposal for
High Court of H.P.
amendment in the R&P Rules of Librarian is under consideration, in
which mode of recruitment had been proposed 100% by promotion
from amongst the Assistant Librarians, failing which, by direct
recruitment and this Court had given direction to the respondents to
finalize the R&P Rules of the post of Librarian. Once the petitioner
was possessing the requisite qualification and the post was
sanctioned and lying vacant, there was no justification to linger on
the matter and not to make the promotion of the petitioner to the
post of Librarian, only on the ground that there is proposal of
amendment of the R&P Rules for the post of Librarian.
14. Learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently
argued that once the petitioner has been promoted as per the
recommendations of the DPC convened on 10.08.2015, the relief
claimed by him has been redressed. However, this submission
cannot be accepted for the reason that the petitioner is claiming his
promotion from the date when the post was lying vacant and he
was possessing the requisite qualifications to hold the post. Once
the petitioner was discharging the duties on the post of Librarian, he
cannot be denied the remuneration of the said post after adjusting
the benefit granted to him under FR 49.
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 18:11:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:47921
9
15. Learned Deputy Advocate General has further
High Court of H.P.
vehemently argued that the claim of the petitioner to treat him at
par with those Librarians working in the Education Department for
the purpose of pay parity is not justified and the said relief cannot
be granted to him for the reason that every Department of the State
has its own R&P Rules for the different posts and these employees
are governed by the R&P Rules of the respective Departments.
There is no quarrel with respect to this settled proposition of law
that the petitioner cannot claim parity and pay scale as granted to
the employees of other Departments. However, at the same time,
this Court cannot ignore the fact that once the respondent-State in
the same Department, where the petitioner had been working had
granted the UGC pay scale, as is evident from a perusal of office
order dated 20.06.2007 (Annexure P-12), when the Government had
accorded approval to grant the UGC scale of Rs.8000-13500/- to
M.L. Verma, Librarian, who retired from service with effect from
01.01.1996 from Dr. RPMC Tanda, the same scale cannot be denied
to the petitioner. Not only this, even prior to this, Shri N.K. Gupta,
who was working in IGMC Shimla as Librarian, where the petitioner
was working and given the additional charge of the post of
Librarian, was also granted the UGC pay scale and once the
incumbents in the same Department were granted the benefit of
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 18:11:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:47921
10
UGC scale, the petitioner cannot be denied the said benefit, more
High Court of H.P.
especially, when he has also discharged the same duties, functions
and responsibilities and denying the UGC pay scale to the petitioner
is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance
upon the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP
(Original Application) No.4314 of 2020, titled, P.N. Chauhan vs.
Himachal Pradesh University and contended that since the
petitioner has discharged the duties of Librarian, which fact is
evident from a perusal of the office order dated 28.09.1999
(Annexure P-4), when he was granted the approval of getting
additional charge of the post of Librarian in addition to his own
duties and further entitled to the benefit of officiating allowance as
admissible under FR 49, he is also entitled to the UGC pay scale as
granted to the incumbent, who was earlier discharging the duties on
the said post. The Division Bench of this Court in the
aforementioned judgment has held that once a person has
performed duties of a higher office for a long period of time and
thereafter his services have been regularized on the said post, he
must get the salary of the same post. The relevant paras of the
judgment read as under:-
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 18:11:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:47921
11
“ 14. Thus, what can be taken to be settled is that a person,
who performed duties of a higher office especially for a long
period of time and his services thereafter regularized on the
said post or is otherwise appointed to the said post must
get the salary of the same post. They cannot waive
fundamental/legal right to get higher salary even if an
endorsement was made in the office order that the
petitioner will not get mandatory benefits. This was held by
a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP(T) No. 7099 of
2008 titled Shiv Dayal Kataria Vs H.P University and another
and the said judgment in turn has been upheld by this
Court in LPA No.100 of 2010 in case titled as Himachal
University Vs. Shiv Dayal Kataria and another decided on
27.10.2015. Admittedly, the said judgment has attained
finality and we see no reason to take a different view.
15. In addition to the aforesaid, it is failed to understand as
to how the University could have denied the benefit of the
pay to the petitioner merely on the basis of queries raised
by the Audit Department. Admittedly, such queries are not
brought to the notice of the petitioner and in such
circumstances, the benefits to the petitioner could not have
been withheld solely on the basis that the audit para
remained unsettled on the part of the State Audit
Department.”
17. Learned Deputy Advocate General has placed reliance
High Court of H.P.
upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA
No.11 of 2012, titled, The Principal Secretary (Personnel) and
another vs. Pratap Thakur , decided on 22.09.2014 to contend
that the parity of pay scale cannot be claimed on the sole ground of
designation and there are other important factors, which are also to
be considered while determining the parity in pay scales. As already
observed above, no doubt, it is settled law that an employee cannot
be granted the benefit of same scale on the basis of designation in
two different Departments, but in the present case, two persons
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 18:11:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:47921
12
who were holding the same post of Librarian in the same
High Court of H.P.
Department once having been granted the UGC pay scale, the
petitioner cannot be deprived of the said benefit and in case, it is
done, it would amount to arbitrary and discriminatory action as well
as would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India. Thus, the aforementioned judgment is not attracted to the
facts of the present case.
18. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the
respondents are directed to grant the UGC pay scale to the
petitioner of the post of Librarian from the date when he became
eligible under the R& P Rules, on the analogy of UGC pay scale
granted to Shri M.L. Verma, Librarian with all consequential benefits.
Since the petitioner has retired from service, the respondents are
also directed to revise his pension and grant him the arrears within
six months from today and in case the arrears of salary and pension
are not paid to him within the aforesaid period, the respondents
shall pay interest on the arrears @6% per annum from today till
actual payment. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed of.
( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj )
th
30 October, 2026 Judge
(naveen)
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 18:11:23 :::CIS