IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 2 of 2010. Decided on: 15.09.2010. __________________________________________________________ Ajay Kumar. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Dhruv Shaunak, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): Petitioner was appointed as Mechanic in the pay scale of Rs.400-660 vide Annexure R-1. Mr. Dhruv Shaunak, learned counsel for the petitioner had strenuously argued that his client should have been appointed in the pay scale of Rs.510-940 and thereafter he should have been placed in the revised pay scale of Rs.1200-2100. He has placed strong reliance on Annexures A-5, A-6 and A-7. Mr. P.M. Ndgi, learned Deputy Advocate General had strenuously argued that the petitioner was only entitled to the pay scale of Rs.400-660 as per appointment letter. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - 3. Petitioner was appointed in the year 1985 as Mechanic. He had made representation seeking higher pay scale. The representation made by the petitioner was rejected by the competent authority on 3rd March, 1997. Mr. Dhruv Shaunak, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of office memorandum dated 4th January, 1978, submits that his client was entitled to be placed in Grade-V and thereafter he was to be paid the pay scale of Rs.160-400, which was revised to Rs.510-940 as per Annexure A-6 and as per Annexure A-7 the same was revised Rs.1200-2100. 4. In the appointment letter the pay scale of the petitioner has been mentioned as Rs.400-660 and the same has been revised to Rs.950-1800 with effect from 1.1.1986. Petitioner was appointed as Mechanic though he has obtained training Course in the Trade of Electrician as per Annexure A-3. The duration of this training course was two years from August, 1977 to July, 1979. He had also obtained one year National Apprenticeship Certificate as per Annexure A-4. Annexure A-5 was only the proposal for rationalization of pay-scales. In order to decide the issue, the Administrative Departments were requested to furnish information on the prescribed proforma. Moreover, the petitioner cannot take advantage of Annexure A-5, dated 4th January, 1978 since he has been appointed as Mechanic though he had obtained training Course in the Trade of Electrician and one year National Apprenticeship Certificate in the same trade. 5. Mr. Dhruv Shaunak, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to Sr. No.43 of Annexure A-6. This entry pertains to the category of Machine Operator and not of Mechanic. Machine Operator was put in the pay scale of Rs.160-400 which was - 3 - revised to Rs.510-940. In Annexure A-7 issued on 28.4.1989, the pay scale of Demonstrator was revised from Rs.450-800/510-940 to 1200- 2100. However, the pay scale of Mechanic has been revised from Rs.400-660 to Rs.950-1800. The petitioner had been appointed as a Mechanic though he has obtained Training Course in the trade of Electrician and one year National Apprenticeship in the same trade. On this score also, the petitioner is not entitled to the revised pay-scale of Rs.1200-2100. In case the petitioner had undergone training course in the trade of technician and thereafter apprenticeship as mechanic and was subsequently appointed as mechanic, his case could be considered for the higher pay-scale as per Annexure A-5 and not otherwise. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observation made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. There shall be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. September 15, 2010. (sck).