IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP (T) 10736 of 2008 Decided on: May 12, 2011 Rita Bharwal ..Petitioner. Versus State of HP and another .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner, who was initially recruited as GDO-II in the year 1983 and then appointed as a Specialist in the year 1986 and is now in the cadre of GDO-I since 28.4.1995, by virtue of merger of cadre of Specialists with that of GDOs, is aggrieved by the order of her pay fixation, copy Annexure A-12. Her grievance is that though prior to issuance of order, copy Annexure A-12, she had been drawing equal or more pay compared to her juniors in the cadre of GDOs, her pay has been fixed at a level lower than that of her juniors, by virtue of Annexure A-12. 2. Petitioner, when initially appointed as GDO-II in the year 1983, was having post graduate degree. Because of her possessing post graduate decree, she was given four Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É advance increments in the pay scale of `940-1850. In the year 1986, there were some vacancies of some specialists. Petitioner being Post Graduate, applied for appointment to the post of Specialist. She was selected and appointed w.e.f. 20.10.1986 in the pay scale of `1400-2000. She was, however, not given any advance increments, because the higher pay-scale of specialists was on account of their being Post Graduates. 3. Revision of pay scales took place w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and the petitioner was placed in the pay scale of `3000- 4500. She had been drawing salary of `3900, in the aforesaid pay scale, when further revision of pay scales took place w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Her pay in the revised scale was fixed at `11,660/-. 4. On 31.1.1995, Government of Himachal Pradesh, issued an Office Memorandum, copy Annexure A-4, which provided for grant of four advance increments to GDOs of both grades, i.e. Grade-I and Grade-II, if they possessed post graduate degree. At that time, cadre of Specialists was separate from that of GDOs. Specialists’ Cadre was merged with that of GDOs w.e.f. 28.4.1995. Though Notification of merger is not there, but this fact is admitted by the respondents in their reply. On account of issuance of Notification of merger, petitioner got into the cadre of GDOs and became entitled to pattern of pay-scales, prescribed for GDOs. 5. On 25.2.2002, Order Annexure A-12 was issued, according to which all the GDOs, irrespective of their grade É3É or qualification, were placed in four pay-scales. The first one was time scale. After four years, every officer was to get pay scale of `10025-15100. After completion of 9 years, they were to get the pay scale of `12000-15500 and on completion of 14 years service, they were to be placed in the pay scale of `14300-18150. In the case of petitioner, pay scales of 4-9-14 were counted from the date of her initial appointment as GDO-II, i.e. 21.2.1983. 6. Petitioner’s grievance is that when cadre of Specialists had been merged with the cadre of GDOs, they became entitled to those benefits, in the matter of fixation of pay, as were admissible to GDOs, prior to merger of Specialists in that cadre and one of such benefits, according to her, was four advance increments to those having PG degree, by virtue of Office Memorandum dated 31.1.1995, copy Annexure A-4. Her case is that earlier Specialists were not entitled to such advance increments, because their pay scale was separate and much higher than the pay scale of the GDOs and that that higher scale took care of the difference between the pay of GDOs, with four advance increments, and the pay of Specialists, without any advance increment. 7. It is also the case of the petitioner that she was unaware of the office memorandum, dated 31.1.1995, copy Annexure A-4, because when it was issued, cadre of Specialists was separate and this memorandum did not cover the Specialists, apparently, for the reason that É4É Specialists, on account of having been placed in a higher pay scale, were not being given any advance increments. 8. Plea raised by the respondents is that petitioner is not entitled to any advance increments, because she did not exercise the option for grant of such increments, under office memo., dated 31.1.1995, copy Annexure A-4, which said that benefit would be available only to those GDOs who surrendered the benefit of advance increments, already availed under the prevalent arrangement/orders. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 10. At the time, when office memorandum dated 31.1.1995, Annexure A-4, was issued, cadre of specialists was separate from that of GDOs. This office memorandum, as already noticed, does not cover the Specialists. Therefore, there was hardly any occasion for this office memorandum, copy Annexure A-4, being brought to the notice of petitioner by the Head of Medical Institution, in which she was working at the relevant time. It is not in dispute that copy of this office memorandum had not been endorsed to the petitioner. Also, there was no occasion for endorsing this office memorandum to her as it did not apply to her cadre of Specialists. Moreover, even if it be assumed that Head of the Institution, in which the petitioner was working at the relevant time, brought this office memorandum to her notice, there was hardly any need for her to have read it carefully, as it did not cover her cadre of Specialists. É5É 11. Petitioner’s contention is that she came to know about the office memorandum, copy Annexure A-4, only when pay fixation had been done on the basis of order dated 25.2.2002, copy Annexure A-12, and the Members of GDO cadre junior to her and getting lesser pay than she was getting, started getting higher pay, on the strength of this order, copy Annexure A-12. She then made representations, copies Annexures A-6, A-7 and A-8 to the Authorities. The same were rejected; vide Annexure A-10, which is dated 27.5.2003. Reason given in this Annexure is that petitioner did not exercise the option to get advance increments, by surrendering the benefit of advance increments already availed, in terms of office memorandum dated 31.1.1995, copy Annexure A-4. 12. As already noticed hereinabove, office memorandum dated 31.1.1995, copy Annexure A-4, was not circulated to the petitioner nor was she supposed to be in the know of it, because it did not affect her as she was in a different cadre of Specialists. Of course, this office memorandum became applicable to the petitioner also, when cadre of Specialists was merged with that of GDOs. She had been drawing higher pay than GDOs, at the time of merger of Specialists’ cadre with that of GDOs, because the pay scale of Specialists was much higher than that /those of GDOs. On the merger of her original cadre of Specialists with that of GDOs, she continued to draw the same salary in the same pay scale, in which she had been drawing prior to the merger of Specialists’ cadre with the cadre of GDOs. It É6É was only in the year 2002, that order Annexure A-12, by which four pay scales were granted to the Members of GDOs cadre, was issued, and all the GDOs, irrespective of their grade, were placed on par, but those possessing post graduate degree, were granted four advance increments, over and above the aforesaid four pay-scales. Benefit of such increments was not given to the petitioner and probably other Specialists also, because earlier when they were in the pay scale of Specialists, their pay scale included higher remuneration, on account of their possessing higher qualification. 13. Four tier pay-scales, released vide order, copy Annexure A-12, were for all the Members of GDO cadre, irrespective of their grade or qualification, but those with higher qualification, were to get the benefit of four advance increments, under office memorandum , copy Annexure A-4. 14. Of course, petitioner did not exercise the option, in terms of Annexure A-4, but as noticed hereinabove, there was no occasion for her to have exercised this option as she was not in the cadre of GDOs to which the said office memorandum (annexure A-4) was applicable, at the time of its issuance nor was she aware of it. 15. As a result of above discussion, writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant benefit of four increments to the petitioner, in case she exercises the option for the same, in terms of office memorandum, dated 31.1.1995, copy annexure A-4, within 30 days from today. Benefit of advance increments, already availed of by her as É7É GDO-II from 1983 to 1986 shall be adjusted against the arrears due to her, on account of grant of four advance increments, in terms of the aforesaid direction. Formal orders of grant of increments shall be issued by the respondents within 60 days of the exercise of the option by the petitioner, in terms of the aforesaid condition. May 12, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.