The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has ruled in favour of a retired labour department officer who sought increment benefits for the period during which he worked on a higher post in additional charge.
Background of the Case
Petitioner Sansar Chand Awasthi had joined government service as Deputy Labour Commissioner in 1986. Over the years, he was repeatedly assigned the duties of Joint Labour Commissioner during the leave periods of senior officers. According to the record, he discharged those higher responsibilities for around 460 days in different spells.
After being regularly promoted to the post of Joint Labour Commissioner in June 1998, Awasthi sought counting of his earlier service on the higher post for the purpose of annual increments under Financial Rules and Subsidiary Rules (F.R.S.R.). His representation was rejected by the State government in October 2005, leading him to approach the High Court.
The petitioner argued that another government employee in a similar situation had earlier received the same benefit under F.R. 26, and denying him identical treatment was unfair.
The State government admitted that the petitioner had officiated on the higher post on several occasions. However, it argued that the assignments were temporary and spread across different periods, not continuous service.
The Finance Department also contended that no formal officiating orders under F.R. 49 had been issued in his favour and therefore he was not entitled to the claimed benefits.
Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj examined Rule 26(c)(i) of the F.R.S.R., which deals with counting service rendered on a higher post for increment purposes. The Court noted that the rule nowhere states that the service must be continuous or rendered in one uninterrupted spell.
The bench observed that the petitioner had admittedly worked on the higher post and later received regular promotion to the same position. The Court said the period spent on the higher assignment could not be ignored merely because it was divided into separate spells.
“The rule does not stipulate that if the person had worked on different spells on the higher post, he is not entitled to count the period,” the Court observed.
The Court also noted that during the pendency of the petition, the government had already paid the petitioner salary for the period he worked as Joint Labour Commissioner. In such circumstances, the State could not deny the corresponding increment benefit.
Justice Bhardwaj further held that once similar benefits had been granted to another similarly placed employee, denying the same relief to the petitioner violated the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The High Court quashed the government communication dated 22 October 2005 rejecting the petitioner’s claim. The State authorities were directed to grant the benefit of F.R. 26 by counting the period during which the petitioner served as Joint Labour Commissioner for increment purposes.
The Court clarified that arrears would be payable only for the period beginning three years prior to the filing of the petition. It also directed that if payment is not made within three months, the arrears would carry interest at 6% per annum.
Case Details
Case Title: Sansar Chand Awasthi v. State of H.P. and Others
Case Number: CWPOA No. 423 of 2019
Judge: Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj
Decision Date: 25 April 2026
