Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj dismissed an appeal filed by the National Institute of Technology, Delhi, against a Single Judge’s decision that had set aside the withdrawal of a retired employee’s higher grade pay and instructed the institute to freshly examine his entitlement to financial upgradation. The Bench observed that the delay in approaching the Court could not be attributed to the employee, as it stemmed from the institute’s prolonged inaction on his representation. Upholding the earlier order, the Court concluded that part of the cause of action had arisen within its territorial jurisdiction and found no reason to interfere with the Single Judge’s directions.

The appeal arose from a decision where the appellant-institute challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge quashing the communication dated 28.01.2022 and permitting the appellant to reconsider the issue of financial upgradation of the respondent-employee. The appellant contended that the employee had joined it on deputation in 2014, served in Delhi, and superannuated there in 2016. It argued that an audit objection had been raised in 2016 regarding the employee’s entitlement to higher grade pay, after which the employee submitted a representation on 15.02.2018. This representation was ultimately rejected by the impugned order dated 28.01.2022, which became the subject matter of the writ petition.

Also Read: Innocent Vehicle Owner Entitled To Interim Custody; NDPS Disposal Rules Don’t Curtail Special Court’s Power : Supreme Court

Before the Division Bench, the appellant argued that the Himachal Pradesh High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction since the employee’s service, deputation, and retirement occurred in Delhi. It asserted that the mere receipt of a copy of the rejection order at the employee’s residence in Himachal Pradesh could not constitute part of the cause of action. It relied on Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. to contend that territorial jurisdiction cannot be conferred on the basis of residence. It further argued that the writ petition was barred by delay because the employee retired in 2016 and raised the claim only in 2018.

The respondent-employee opposed these submissions, relying on Nawal Kishor Sharma and submitting that even a fraction of the cause of action arising within the State—such as the communication of the rejection order to his home address—was sufficient to invoke jurisdiction. He also contended that the representation had remained undecided until 2022, and therefore the writ petition challenging the eventual rejection could not be treated as delayed. The Single Judge’s consideration that a deputationist may be entitled to financial upgradation and that the withdrawal of grade pay lacked recorded reasons also formed part of the record.

 The Court remarked: “It is not disputed that filing of the representation in the year 2018 had never been responded to by the present appellant and only when the rejection order was passed on 28.01.2022, the writ petition came to be filed in July 2022… Having delayed to respond to the representation, now they cannot turn around and take the stance that there was a delay on the part of the employee.”

The Court recorded that the learned Single Judge found that the order dated 28.01.2022 “did not contain any valid reasons” and relied on Mohinder Singh Gill to hold that grounds of a statutory order must be contained within the order itself and “cannot be supplemented by filing a reply in the subsequent proceedings.”

On territorial jurisdiction, the Bench considered the appellant’s reliance on Kusum Ingots but stated that “the communication dated 28.01.2022 by the appellant was not only addressed to the Under Secretary to the Government of India, but copy of the same had also been sent to the employee at his village and post office Karota situated in District Hamirpur.” It observed that the argument denying jurisdiction was “without any basis.”

The Court further examined Nawal Kishor Sharma and reproduced the Supreme Court’s reasoning that where “a copy of the letter was sent to the Appellant at his native place…” and where representations were made and replied to at that address, “a part or fraction of cause of action arose” there. It noted that the facts in the present case were “identical.”

The Court finally observed that the employee was only pursuing his grievance and that the Single Judge had merely directed reconsideration. It stated that “no interference is called for in the impugned judgment in the present Letters Patent Appeal.”

Also Read: Himachal Pradesh High Court: Pay Of Junior Employee Cannot Exceed That Of Senior Under 2022 Service Rules; Recovery Of Excess Salary Not Justified When Overpayment Results From Departmental Error

The Court recorded that the learned Single Judge had quashed the order dated 28.01.2022 and permitted the appellant “to take a fresh decision in this regard strictly in accordance with law regarding the issue of financial upgradation, and whether it is permissible or not.”

In the present appeal, the Division Bench stated: “we are of the considered opinion that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment in the present Letters Patent Appeal. We find no merit in the present appeal and same is accordingly dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Mr. Kartik Kaushal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Lalit Sehgal, Advocate,; Mr. Rahul Gathania, Advocate.

Case Title: National Institute of Technology, Delhi v. Raj Kamal Verma and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:36342
Case Number: LPA No. 05 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj