HP High Court Dismisses HPSEBL Appeal: Displaying Office Order on Website Alone Does Not Discharge Notice Obligation to Employee
The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld an employee's right to exercise a 15% pay-hike option late, holding that mere website publication of an office order with financial implications is not valid constructive notice.
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the HP State Electricity Board Limited (HPSEBL), upholding the relief granted to a Senior Assistant who had missed the window to exercise an option for a 15% pay enhancement after his promotion. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi, deciding LPA No.36 of 2026 on 24 July 2026, affirmed that HPSEBL could not defeat the employee's claim merely by asserting that the relevant office order was available on its website. The court found that an order with direct financial consequences for a government employee must be communicated through an accepted, reasonable mode — posting it online is not enough.
The Dispute Before the High Court
Narender Kumar, the respondent, is employed with HPSEBL. He was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant on 01.03.2017 — a date that fell within the window of 01.01.2016 to 12.04.2022 specified in Office Order dated 13.04.2022 (Annexure R-III) for eligibility to avail a 15% pay enhancement from the date of promotion.
When HPSEBL notified revised pay scales with effect from 01.01.2016 through Office Order No.1 dated 12.04.2022, Narender Kumar exercised his option for pay fixation by a multiplication factor of 2.59, filing his option on 09.05.2022 — within the prescribed two-month period under Clause 6 of the Revised Pay Regulations, 2022. What he did not do was exercise a separate option under Office Order dated 13.04.2022, which entitled employees promoted between 01.01.2016 and 12.04.2022 to switch to the revised pay structure from the date of promotion, with a minimum 15% increase over existing basic pay plus nominal dearness allowance at 113%.
According to Narender Kumar, he was unaware of Office Order dated 13.04.2022 at the relevant time because he was posted in the field. He came to know of the disparity only in January 2023, after being posted to headquarters, when he noticed that junior employees were drawing a higher salary. On inquiry, he learnt that the pay gap arose because those juniors had exercised option under Office Order dated 13.04.2022. He filed a representation on 02.05.2024 seeking an opportunity to exercise the option with effect from 01.05.2017, the date of his promotion.
HPSEBL rejected the representation on 30.05.2024, citing that sufficient time had been given — including extensions through Office Orders No.7, No.10, and No.11 — and that the deadline of 12.10.2022 had long passed. Narender Kumar challenged this rejection before the learned Single Judge in CWP No.8150 of 2024, which was allowed by judgment dated 01.07.2025. HPSEBL then preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.
The Two Distinct Sets of Office Orders
Central to the Division Bench's reasoning was the distinction between two separate regulatory exercises that HPSEBL conflated in its rejection letter.
The first set — Office Order No.1 dated 12.04.2022 (Revised Pay Regulations, 2022) — governed pay fixation by a factor of 2.59 with effect from 01.01.2016. The extensions of time to exercise this option were granted through Office Order No.7 dated 08.06.2022 (up to 12.08.2022), Office Order No.10 dated 23.07.2022, and Office Order No.11 dated 15.09.2022 (up to 12.10.2022).
The second — Office Order dated 13.04.2022 (Annexure R-III) — was a separate order addressing employees promoted between 01.01.2016 and 12.04.2022. Clause 3 of that order gave such employees the option to switch to the revised pay structure from the date of promotion, with a 15% enhancement. This order was issued one day after the Revised Pay Regulations, 2022.
Office Order No.8 dated 08.07.2022 revised the pay band of employees with effect from 01.10.2012 and operated in a different domain. Office Orders No.10 and No.11 were expressly issued in continuation of Office Order No.8, not in continuation of Office Order dated 13.04.2022.
The Division Bench agreed with the learned Single Judge that the extensions of time granted through Office Orders No.7, No.10, and No.11 pertained exclusively to the Revised Pay Regulations, 2022 (Office Order No.1 dated 12.04.2022). None of these extension orders mentioned Office Order dated 13.04.2022. Consequently, the time-limit argument put forward by HPSEBL in its rejection letter — that the deadline of 12.10.2022 had expired — had no application to the 15% option under Office Order dated 13.04.2022. The bench found this conclusion of the learned Single Judge beyond reproach.
Why the Rejection Letter Could Not Be Supplemented
HPSEBL attempted, through its reply before the writ court, to advance additional justifications for the rejection beyond those stated in the rejection letter dated 30.05.2024. The Division Bench refused to entertain this approach, relying on the principle affirmed in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405.
That judgment holds that when a statutory authority makes an order based on certain grounds, the validity of the order must be judged by the reasons stated in the order itself and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons through an affidavit or otherwise. The court noted the observation in Mohinder Singh Gill that “orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.”
The rejection letter of 30.05.2024 cited only the expiry of the option deadline as the reason for rejecting the representation. Since that deadline pertained to a different office order — not to Office Order dated 13.04.2022 — the stated reason was not sustainable, and HPSEBL could not cure the deficiency by introducing new grounds later.
Website Publication Is Not Sufficient Notice
The Division Bench dealt with HPSEBL's submission that Office Order dated 13.04.2022 was in the public domain because it was available on the Board's website. The court rejected this as inadequate for an order that carried direct and serious financial implications for the affected employee.
The bench observed that Office Order dated 13.04.2022 pertained to financial aspects and had serious implications for Narender Kumar's monthly salary. Merely displaying the order on a website, without ensuring that it was brought to the notice of the employees for whose benefit it was issued, did not discharge the Board's obligation of publication through an accepted, reasonable mode.
The bench drew support from the Supreme Court's decision in Harla v. State of Rajasthan, AIR (1951) SC 936, which laid down that before a law or order can become operative against individuals, it must be promulgated or published in some recognisable way so that those affected may know of it — or at the very least, there must be some special rule, regulation, or customary channel through which knowledge can be acquired with due and reasonable diligence. The court also referenced the Himachal Pradesh High Court's own judgment dated 24.04.2025 in Satish Kumar v. State of H.P. & Ors., CWP No.1558 of 2024, as correctly relied upon by the learned Single Judge.
The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's finding that there was no delay on the part of Narender Kumar in filing the writ petition, because he approached the court only after becoming aware of Office Order dated 13.04.2022 in January 2023, when the disparity in his salary vis-à-vis his juniors came to his notice at headquarters. The representation followed in May 2024 after his inquiry clarified the source of the disparity.
The Amended Rules Requirement
The bench recorded one additional fact relevant to the operative status of Office Order dated 13.04.2022. Clause 3 of that order required that necessary amendments in the relevant rules be got done. No amended rules made pursuant to Office Order dated 13.04.2022 were placed on record by HPSEBL. This further undermined the Board's position that a strict and binding deadline had applied to the exercise of option under that order.
Outcome
The Division Bench dismissed LPA No.36 of 2026 on 24 July 2026 as devoid of merit, affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 01.07.2025 in CWP No.8150 of 2024. Any pending miscellaneous applications stood disposed of. The judgment was authored by Justice Bipin Chander Negi and signed by both Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi. The effect of the dismissal is that Narender Kumar retains the benefit of the relief granted by the writ court, permitting him to exercise an option for the 15% pay enhancement with effect from the date of his promotion to Senior Assistant on 01.03.2017.