In these writ petitions, employees of the Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank contested the denial of financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) upon completing four years of service without promotion. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh reaffirmed that even if a cooperative bank is not a “State” under Article 12, a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against it when arbitrary or illegal service actions are challenged. The Court held that general pay revisions or initial pay fixations cannot be substituted for or equated with ACPS benefits, which are specifically designed to provide relief in the absence of promotional avenues. Furthermore, because the erroneous denial of salary increments under ACPS affects an employee every month, it constitutes a “recurring cause of action” and a continuing wrong, rendering the defense of delay and laches inapplicable to the core claim, though monetary arrears are restricted to three years prior to filing. Consequently, the petitions were allowed with directions to grant ACPS benefits and calculate arrears accordingly.

• Maintainability of Writ Against Co-operative Banks: Relying on Full Bench precedents (Vikram Chauhan v. Managing Director), the Court underscored that while a co-operative bank may not qualify as a “State” under Article 12, a writ petition under Article 226 remains maintainable against it if the factual situation and arbitrary administrative actions warrant judicial intervention.
• Entitlement to ACPS: Employees who complete four years of service in a cadre without receiving a promotion are statutorily and scheme-wise entitled to placement in the next higher grade pay under the ACPS, and denying this while granting it to other similarly situated counterparts is discriminatory under Articles 14 and 16.
• Distinction Between Pay Revision and ACPS: Financial enhancements resulting from general pay commission recommendations or initial pay fixations do not constitute “financial upgradation” under ACPS and cannot be used as a ground to deny ACPS entitlements that become due after completion of the prescribed years of service.
• Recurring Cause of Action / Continuing Wrong: Citing the Supreme Court dictum in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, the Court ruled that the wrongful withholding of pay increments via ACPS creates a continuing source of injury every month; hence, the claim cannot be defeated by delay and laches, though arrears are restricted to a period of three years prior to the filing of the writ petition.
• Final Directions: The petitions were allowed, and the respondent-Bank was directed to grant the benefit of ACPS to the petitioners upon completion of four years of service with all consequential benefits, restricting actual monetary arrears to three years prior to the petition’s filing and awarding 6% annual interest in the event of default within three months.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 521

Ajay Kumar and Others v. Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Ltd. (D.O.J. 22.06.2026)