Government Employee Can't Be Denied Financial Benefit Merely For Lack Of Awareness Of Office Order Published Online: HP HC
Namdev Singh
20 Aug 2026 4:00 PM IST
A Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi held that a government employee cannot be denied the benefit of an office order with financial implications merely because it was placed on a website, as proper publication through a reasonable mode is essential, and the employee's lack of awareness due to field posting and subsequent timely representation must be considered.
Background Facts
The respondent was working as an employee. He was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant on 01.03.2017. The Revised Pay Regulations of 2022 were issued by Office Order No.1 dated 12.04.2022. The respondent exercised an option for pay fixation by a factor of 2.59 on 09.05.2022 within the stipulated time.
Later, Office Order dated 13.04.2022 was issued which provided for a 15% hike with effect from the date of promotion for employees promoted between 01.01.2016 and 12.04.2022. The respondent was posted in the field, so he became aware of this Office Order only when he was posted at Headquarters in January 2023. He noticed disparity in his pay as compared to his juniors who were drawing a higher salary. He found that the pay disparity was attributable to the option exercised by his juniors in terms of Office Order dated 13.04.2022.
The respondent filed a representation dated 02.05.2024 seeking to exercise option with respect to 15% hike with effect from 01.05.2017. The representation was rejected on the ground that it was submitted at a belated stage.
Aggrieved by the rejection, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed the appeal before the Himachal Pradesh High Court against the Single Judge order.
It was argued by the appellants that the respondent had been given sufficient time to exercise option, which was extended up to 12.10.2022. It was contended that the representation was rejected because it was submitted at a belated stage. The appellants further submitted that the extensions of time granted by Office Orders pertained to the Revised Pay Regulations, 2022. Further that sufficient opportunity was given to employees to exercise their option.
On the other hand, it was argued by the respondent that he was not aware of Office Order dated 13.04.2022 as he was posted in the field. When he was posted at Headquarters in January 2023 then he became aware of the disparity in his pay as compared to his juniors. He submitted that the pay disparity was attributable to the option exercised by his juniors in terms of Office Order dated 13.04.2022.
Findings and Observations of the Court
It was noted by the Division Bench that the respondent had exercised an option for pay fixation by a factor of 2.59 within a period of two months from the issuance of Revised Pay Regulations, 2022. It was further observed that Office Orders extending time had nothing to do with Office Order dated 13.04.2022 which provided for a 15% enhancement.
It was found by the Bench that in Office Orders, conspicuous by absence was a mention of the Office Order dated 13.04.2022, whereby the option of a 15% hike with effect from the date of promotion had been granted. It was further observed that the respondent had been promoted on 01.03.2017 and therefore satisfied the condition specified in Office Order dated 13.04.2022.
It was observed that the Office Order dated 13.04.2022 was related to financial aspects and has serious implications towards the monthly salary of the respondent. Therefore, just stating that the said letter was in the public domain, i.e., on the website of the respondents, was not enough to dispense with the requirement of bringing it to the notice of the employee.
The case of Harla vs. State of Rajasthan was relied upon wherein it was held that promulgation or publication of some reasonable sort is essential for a law to become operative. Further the judgment in Satish Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Ors. was also relied upon by the Division Bench.
It was held by the Bench that there was no delay on the part of the respondent as the petition was only filed once the respondent became aware of Office Order dated 13.04.2022.
With the aforesaid observations, the order of the Single judge was upheld by the Division Bench. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed by the Division Bench.
Case Name : HPSEBL and Anr. v. Narender Kumar
Case No. : LPA No.36 of 2026
Counsel for the Appellants : Sunita Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Aman Hansretta, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondent : Surender Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Sidharth Negi, Advocate
