Service Rendered On Higher Post In Different Spells Must Count For Increment Benefits: HP High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a government employee who officiated on a higher post in different spells cannot be denied increment benefits under Fundamental Rule 26 merely because the service was not continuous. The Court observed that once the State had granted salary benefits for the period spent on the higher post, the same duration was also required to be counted for...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a government employee who officiated on a higher post in different spells cannot be denied increment benefits under Fundamental Rule 26 merely because the service was not continuous.
The Court observed that once the State had granted salary benefits for the period spent on the higher post, the same duration was also required to be counted for increments.
Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj Remarked that: “the petitioner had served on the higher post on different spells is rejected for the reason that 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 when the person had served on the higher post for count of increments. Once the respondents have granted the benefit of the pay of higher post … the said period is also required to be counted for the purpose of giving him the benefit of increments.”
Background:
The petitioner, Sansar Chand Awasthi, was appointed as Deputy Labour Commissioner in 1986 and was repeatedly assigned duties of Joint Labour Commissioner for a cumulative period of about 460–463 days before his regular promotion to that post in 1998.
The petitioner argued that under FR-26 and FR-49 of the Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules (FRSR), the period during which he officiated on the higher post ought to have been counted for increment purposes. He further contended that although he had performed the duties of Joint Labour Commissioner for several spells, the State had denied him the corresponding increment benefit despite granting similar relief to another employee in a comparable situation.
The State opposed the plea on the ground that no specific officiating orders under FR-49 had been issued and that the petitioner had not worked continuously on the higher post. It also argued that the officiating appointments had not been made through the procedure prescribed under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules.
The Court examined FR-26(c)(i), which provides that where a government servant officiates on a higher post and is later reappointed to the lower post or a post carrying the same pay scale, the period spent on the higher post must count towards increments in the lower post's pay scale.
Referring to the rule, the Court observed that the petitioner had admittedly worked on the higher post of Joint Labour Commissioner in several spells before his eventual regular promotion. Therefore, the period spent by him on the higher post was liable to be counted for increment purposes. The Court stated that there was “no justification” for denying him the benefit.
Rejecting the State's objections, the Court held that FR-26 nowhere required continuous officiation on the higher post for claiming increment benefits. It further noted that once the State had already paid the petitioner salary for the period he discharged duties on the higher post, it could not simultaneously argue that his appointment procedure was defective.
The Court also relied on the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, observing that another similarly situated employee had already been granted the same benefit under FR-26. Denial of identical treatment to the petitioner was therefore discriminatory.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the communication rejecting the petitioner's claim and directed the State to grant him the benefit of FR-26 by counting the period spent on the higher post for increment purposes.
Case Name: Sansar Chand Awasthi V/s State of H.P.
Case No.: CWPOA No.423 of 2019
Date of Decision: 25.04.2026