JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J. 1. Petitioners’ grievance is that respondents have incorrectly interpreted notifications dated 03.01.2022 (The Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022) and 06.09.2022 (The Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) First Amendment Rules, 2022). The consequence whereof is that pay fixation anomaly has occasioned, resulting in petitioners drawing lesser pay-scale than their own batchmates including some juniors, causing financial loss to them. 2. Background: (i) Petitioners alongwith 151 others were appointed as Clerks under a common office order issued on 04.09.2019. Their appointments were made on contract basis but in accordance with applicable Recruitment and Promotions Rules (R&P) against sanctioned posts. On 28.12.2021, respondents notified their decision for reducing the service period of contract appointees for regularization from three years to two years for those, who had completed two years continuous service as on 30.09.2021.In accordance with Government decision dated28.12.2021, the petitioners having completed two years of contractual service as on 30.09.2021, were regularized on the recommendation of the Departmental Screening Committee on 30.12.2021. Petitioners were regularized in the pay-band of Rs. 5910-20,200+ 1900 GP +400/- secretariat pay. (ii) In the meanwhile Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022 were notified on 03.01.2022. As per Rule 1(2) whereof, the rules were deemed to have come into force on and w.e.f. 01.01.2016. Rule 7(I) of these Rules provided for fixation of pay of Government employees recruited/appointed before 01.01.2016, whereas Rule 7(II) gave the mechanism for pay fixation of regular government employees recruited/appointed on or after 01.01.2016. The employees were to exercise option in terms of the rules. The petitioners also exercised their options for coming over to the revised pay-scales. (iii) Respondents issued an office order on 23.02.2022 whereunder pay of 9 Clerks was fixed in the revised pay-scale. As per Annexure-A thereof, pay of five Clerks including two juniors to the petitioners’ was fixed at stage of Rs. 20,800/-, however, vide Annexure-B thereof, petitioners’ pay was fixed at lower stage of Rs.20,200/-. For fixing pay of the Clerks in Annexure-A, the respondents multiplied their existing pay by factor of 2.59 in accordance with Rule 7 of the Revised Pay Rules, 2022, but this method was not used while fixing the pay of the petitioners in Annexure-B. Consequently, the pay of the petitioners’ batchmates and juniors was fixed at the stage of Rs.20,800/- whereas petitioners’ pay was fixed at lower stage of Rs.20,200/-. Thus, anomaly in petitioners’ pay-scale originated. (iv) On 06.09.2022, the respondents notified Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) First Amendment Rules, 2022. As per Rule 1(2) thereof, the amendment was deemed to have come into force on 03.01.2022. This notification inserted following Rule 7(A) after Rule 7 in the notification dated 03.01.2022:- “In exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to article 309 and clause (3) of article 187 of the Constitution of India read with proviso to sub-rule (1) of rule 10 of the Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh, is pleased to make the following rules, to amend the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022 notified vide this Department's Notification No. Fin-(PR}B(7}-1/2021 dated: 3rd January, 2022, namely: - 1. Short title and Commencement. (1) These rules may be called the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) First Amendment Rules, 2022. (2) They shall be deemed to have come into force on 3rd January, 2022. 2. Insertion of Rules 7(A} In the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022, after Rule 7, the following shall be inserted, namely:- 7(A) - Fixation of pay of certain categories: (1) This rule shall apply to the employees, who are appointed before 3rd January, 2022. (2) The pay of employee of those categories/ posts included in Schedule-II shall be fixed at higher pay stage in the concerned level of pay matrix after completion of two years regular service as given in Schedule-II.". Under notification dated 06.09.2022 post of Clerk was to get higher stage of pay of Rs.30500/- after two years of regular service. Petitioners’ grievance is that their batchmates including their juniors have been placed in the higher pay structure of Rs.30500/- however, petitioners’ pay scale limited to Rs.20,200/- under notification dated 03.01.2022 has been upstaged only to Rs.21,400 i.e. 9,100/- less than drawn by their batchmates and juniors. (v) Representations preferred by the petitioners despite favourable opinion of the Law Department, have not resulted in any concrete position action from the administrative department, hence, this writ petition has been filed for following substantive relief:- “(i) That the respondent department may be directed to fix the pay of the petitioners at the higher stage of Rs. (v) Representations preferred by the petitioners despite favourable opinion of the Law Department, have not resulted in any concrete position action from the administrative department, hence, this writ petition has been filed for following substantive relief:- “(i) That the respondent department may be directed to fix the pay of the petitioners at the higher stage of Rs. 20,800/- from the same date as was done in the cases of their batchmates vide Annexure P-4 dated 23.2.2022, with a further direction to refix their pay at the higher stage of Rs. 30,500/- from the same date as was done in the cases of their batchmates and some juniors vide order dated 9.1.2024, Annexure P-9, with all consequential benefits. (ii) That upon fixation of their pay as prayed for in prayer clause (i) above, all the consequential benefits including arrears of pay be directed to be released to the petitioners along with interest on delayed payment forthwith.” 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4. Facts described above have not been disputed by the respondents. Learned Assistant Advocate General on the strength of reply filed by the respondents gave one justification for not treating the petitioners at par with their batchmates & juniors in matter of conferments of financial benefits flowing under notifications dated 03.01.2022 and 06.09.2022. The justification given is that: (i) In accordance with notification 28.12.2021, the Government had decided to regularize the services of petitioners alongwith others as they had completed two years of continuous service as on 30.09.2021-the cut-off date fixed for the purpose. Consequently regularization order was issued on 30.12.2021 whereunder services of not only the petitioners but their batchmates and juniors, who were initially appointed on contract basis under a common office order dated 04.09.2019, were regularized. (ii) In compliance to the office order dated 30.12.2021, petitioners’ batchmates & juniors joined their services on regular basis before 03.01.2022 but the petitioners joined their services on regular basis on 03.01.2022. Since 03.01.2022 was the cut-off date for grant of benefits flowing from revised pay-scales notified on 03.01.2022 as amended on 06.09.2022, the petitioners have justly been denied the benefits thereof. 5. The stand taken by the respondents for denying revised pay-scales to the petitioners as made admissible to their batchmates and juniors, is liable to be rejected . Since 03.01.2022 was the cut-off date for grant of benefits flowing from revised pay-scales notified on 03.01.2022 as amended on 06.09.2022, the petitioners have justly been denied the benefits thereof. 5. The stand taken by the respondents for denying revised pay-scales to the petitioners as made admissible to their batchmates and juniors, is liable to be rejected . This is for the following reasons :- (i) Admittedly petitioners alongwith 151 others were appointed under common office order on contract basis on 04.09.2019. It is also not in dispute that on completion of 2 years of service on contract basis by these incumbents as on 30.09.2021, their services were regularized under a common order issued on30.12.2021. (ii) A perusal of the common order dated 30.12.2021 regularizing services of 151 incumbents including the petitioners makes it clear that all the incumbents were granted one week time to join as regular employees. Petitioners joined as such on 03.01.2022. Their such joining on 03.01.2022, pursuant to their regularization on 30.12.2021, cannot be faulted. Their joining on 03.01.2022 was within the time granted to them to join as regular employees. (iii) Respondents released higher pay-scales under notifications dated 03.01.2022 & 06.09.2022 to petitioners’ batchmates & juniors, who had joined between 30.12.2021 to 02.01.2022 but denied the same to the petitioners, who had joined as regular employees on 03.01.2022.It is well settled that there cannot be any discrimination between similarly situated employees merely on the basis of dates of their joining. Sita Ram Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. , [LPA No. 53/2009 decided on 08.12.2010] was a case, where seniority was directed to be prepared on the basis of date of appointment and not on the basis of date of joining. Relevant para from the judgment reads as under:- “6. Once it is prescribed in the rules that the seniority in a cadre will be reckoned or fixed from the date of appointment, that does not mean that the same be reckoned or fixed from the date of joining duty. The appointment is made from a select list prepared on the basis of merit. All appointments are made on the same date. If the date of joining duty is taken as the norm, the person nearest to the Headquarters will always get the advantage of joining first in the station. That will be unjust and unreasonable. The appointment is made from a select list prepared on the basis of merit. All appointments are made on the same date. If the date of joining duty is taken as the norm, the person nearest to the Headquarters will always get the advantage of joining first in the station. That will be unjust and unreasonable. Therefore, the Rule making authority has consciously provided the norm that the seniority will be fixed on the basis of the date of appointment. Once the date of appointment is taken as a norm among candidates appointed on the same day, their inter se seniority has to be fixed on the basis of merit in the select list. That shall not depend upon the fact as to whose appointment order has been first signed or first dispatched, or who has joined duty first from the list. Therefore, the seniority in the case of lower subordinate staff in the category of Constable/Radio Technician shall be fixed on the basis of the date of appointment. In the case of all those who are appointed on a particular date, their inter se seniority shall be fixed on the basis of their merit in the select list.” Bimlesh Tanwar Vs. State of Haryana , AIR 2003 SC 2000 laid down that mere fortuitous chance of reporting to duty earlier would not alter the ranking given by the selection Board. Relevant portion of the judgment is as under:- “49. In this case also, although there does not exist any statutory rule but the practice of determining inter se seniority on the basis of the merit list has been evolved on interpretation of the Rules. A select list is prepared keeping in view the respective merit of the candidates. Not only appointments are required to be made on the basis of such merit list, seniority is also to be determined on that basis as it is expected that the candidates should be joining their respective posts almost at the same time. Yet again in Chairman, Puri Gramya Bank & Anr. vs. Ananda Chandra Das & Ors.[ 1994 (6) SCC 301 ] this court held: "It is settled law that if more than one are selected, the seniority is as per ranking of the direct recruits subject to the adjustment of the candidates selected on applying the rule of reservation and the roster. vs. Ananda Chandra Das & Ors.[ 1994 (6) SCC 301 ] this court held: "It is settled law that if more than one are selected, the seniority is as per ranking of the direct recruits subject to the adjustment of the candidates selected on applying the rule of reservation and the roster. By mere fortuitous chance of reporting to duty earlier would not alter the ranking given by the Selection Board and the arranged one as per roster. The High Court is, therefore, wholly wrong in its conclusion that the seniority shall be determined on the basis of the joining reports given by the candidates selected for appointment by direct recruitment and length of service on its basis." Petitioners though remain senior to their juniors yet on account of their joining as regular employees on 03.01.2022, which is though within the time allotted to them for the purpose but which is otherwise later to the joining of their batchmates & juniors who had joined between 30.12.2021 to 02.01.2022, have been denied the higher pay-scales, granted to their batchmates & juniors. Respondents’ action, therefore, in differentiating the petitioners with their own batchmates and juniors only on the basis of dates of their joining pursuant to their common regularization order, for the purpose of conferring financial benefits admissible under the notifications dated 03.01.2022 and 06.9.2022 cannot be countenanced. (iv) Notwithstanding above, the notifications dated 03.01.2022 as well as 06.09.2022 are to apply on the appointment of the employees on regular basis. Applicability of these notifications has not been restricted from the date of joining of the regular employees. Learned Assistant Advocate General could not point out any such provision either in the notification dated 03.01.2022 or 06.09.2022, which creates such distinction between the appointment and actual date of joining insofar as release of financial benefits is concerned. It is a matter of record that petitioners, their batchmates & juniors all were appointed on regular basis under a common order on 30.12.2021 i.e. prior to 03.01.2022-the date when revised pay scales Rules, 2022 were notified. Hence the petitioners are also entitled to the benefits, which have been made admissible under the aforesaid notifications to their batchmates and juniors. (v) Apart from petitioners’ joining as regular employees on 03.01.2022, respondents have not assigned any other reason for not applying revised pay-scale notifications dated 03.01.2022 and 06.09.2022 to the petitioners. Hence the petitioners are also entitled to the benefits, which have been made admissible under the aforesaid notifications to their batchmates and juniors. (v) Apart from petitioners’ joining as regular employees on 03.01.2022, respondents have not assigned any other reason for not applying revised pay-scale notifications dated 03.01.2022 and 06.09.2022 to the petitioners. The assigned reason as held above is not sustainable in law. 6. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is allowed. 7. Respondents are directed to confer the benefits of notifications dated 03.01.2022 (Annexure P-4) and 06.09.2022 (Annexure P-7) upon the petitioners at par with their batchmates and juniors with all consequential benefits. This exercise be completed within four weeks. It is made clear that in case resultant financial benefits are not paid within the aforesaid period, the same shall carry interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.