IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No.: 4854 of 2008 Date of decision: 10.8.2010 Jattu Ram and another … Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr.Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl.A.G Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has claimed the following reliefs:- (i) “ That the respondents may very kindly be restrained from reducing the pay scale of the applicants from Rs.1640-2925 to Rs.1500-2700 and they may be held entitled for the pay scale of Rs.1640-2925 as per the terms of his appointment letter. (ii) That the respondents may also be restrained from affecting any recoveries from applicant on account of reduction of pay scale. (iii) That the adhoc/tenure services rendered by the applicant from June, 1989 to September 1991 may very kindly be ordered to be counted 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 towards all service benefits including seniority and other consequential benefits” 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed as Language Teacher on 2.1.1989 on tenure basis in the pay scale of Rs.570-1080 with initial start of Rs.620/-. This pay scale was later revised to Rs.1640-2925. It is not disputed that the selection of the petitioners were made after following the proper process. In fact, the services of the petitioners were regularized on 21.8.1991 in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2925. On 4.8.1997 a Memo Annexure A-5 was issued and it was directed that the pay of the petitioners should have been fixed in the pay scale of Rs.1500-2700 and not in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925. The petitioners challenged this order on the ground that their pay could not be reduced after so many years. Though this petition was filed as far back in the year 1998 no reply has been filed till date. It is orally submitted on the basis of the reply filed in similar matters that some instructions in this behalf were issued but no such instructions have been placed on record. In fact, the 3 Recruitment and Promotion Rules only provides for one scale of pay and do not provide for two separate scales of pay. Instructions cannot override the Rules. It is not the case of the petitioners that the petitioners misrepresented or due to his misrepresentation the pay of the petitioners were fixed in a higher scale. If any mistake was committed by the department the petitioners cannot be made to suffer for that after 11 long years. 3. Even otherwise the pay of the petitioners could not have been reduced after 11 years on their joining services that too without issuing notice to them. Therefore, the impugned order is set-aside and the petitioners are held entitled to the pay in the scale of Rs.1640-2925. No recovery can be made from the amount already paid to the petitioners. 4. In view of the above discussion the petition is allowed and the annexure A-5 is quashed and set- aside with all consequential benefits. No order as to costs. 10th August, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.