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
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Single Bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua held that, in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022, a government employee’s pay cannot exceed that of their immediate senior. The Court upheld the State’s action of correcting an employee’s pay that had been fixed at a higher level but set aside the order for recovery of the excess amount, noting that the overpayment arose from a departmental error rather than any fault of the employee. Justice Dua observed that a Clerk is “placed” as a Junior Assistant and not “promoted,” and that the correction made by the authorities after the discrepancy was brought to their notice by the senior employee was appropriately carried out.
The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk on a contract basis on 14 September 2011. His senior, referred to as respondent No. 4, had been appointed earlier on 25 August 2011. Both began on a pay scale of Rs. 5910 + 1900 = 7810. After five years of service, they were regularized as Clerks and subsequently placed in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 10300 + 3200 = 13500 after two years of service. On 20 October 2021, both were placed as Junior Assistants in the pay scale of Rs. 11560 + 3600 = 15160.
The State notified the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022, effective from 1 January 2016. Under Rule 6, government employees were required to exercise an option for coming over to the revised pay scale within a month. The petitioner opted to switch to the revised pay structure on 14 February 2022, seeking a 15% enhancement from the date of his placement as Junior Assistant on 20 October 2021. His pay was fixed at Rs. 37,700 (Cell 10 Level 7) effective from 21 October 2021.
Respondent No. 4, however, exercised his option differently, choosing 22 October 2018 (the date both completed two years of regular service) as the date for the 15% enhancement. His pay was fixed at Rs. 33,300 (Cell 18 Level 3) from that date.
Following a representation by respondent No. 4, the competent authority determined that the petitioner’s option was incorrectly exercised, leading to overpayment. An order dated 16 February 2024 refixed the petitioner’s pay to match that of his senior and directed recovery of the excess amount. The petitioner challenged this decision, arguing that his pay could not be reduced and that the senior’s pay should instead be stepped up under Rule 9 of the Revised Pay Rules, 2022.
The Court noted: “Increase in petitioner and respondent No.4’s revised pay under the Revised Pay Scales 2022 was less than 15% over and above the formulation of their existing basic pay plus notional dearness allowance; they, therefore, were entitled to the 15% enhancement as provided under para of office letter/instructions dated 10.02.2022.”
The Court examined paragraph 3 of the 10 February 2022 office instructions, which allowed employees to switch over to the revised pay structure from the date of promotion. However, it observed: “The petitioner had exercised the option for coming over to the revised pay scale from the date of his placement as Junior Assistant w.e.f. 20.10.2021 by describing the same as ‘promotion’, whereas respondent No.4 had exercised his option under the same office instructions correctly on after completion of two years of regular service as Clerk.”
The Court further noted that a Clerk is only “placed as Junior Assistant and not promoted as such”, and therefore, the petitioner’s option was contrary to the provisions of the office instructions. The competent authority’s action in rectifying the pay anomaly, bringing the petitioner’s pay at par with his senior, was held to be valid.
Justice Dua also relied on Clause 4(II) of the 10 February 2022 instructions, which stipulates that a junior’s pay cannot exceed that of the immediate senior. The judgment stated: “Clause 4(II) of these office instructions clearly stipulates that there cannot be any situation, where as a consequence of exercise of option under the said instructions, a junior can draw higher pay than that of his immediate senior. If he does, his pay would be refixed and brought down to the level of his immediate senior.”
The judgment recorded: “The excess payment was made to the petitioner not on account of any fault on his part, but due to an error committed by the respondents re-fixing petitioner’s pay incorrectly by acting upon incorrect option furnished by him at the relevant time.”
Accordingly, the Court ordered: “Respondents’ action in issuing impugned office order dated 16.02.2025 (Annexure P-14) is affirmed to the extent it brings down & fixes petitioner’s pay at par with that of immediate senior i.e. respondent No.4, however, remaining part of Annexure P-14 ordering recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner due to wrong fixation of his pay is quashed and set aside.”
The writ petition to stand disposed of in above terms.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajender Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.
Case Title: Chaman v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:34634
Case Number: CWP No. 3646/2024
Bench: Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
