IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 10067 of 2008 Decided on : 03.08.2011 ________________________________________________ Gian Chand and others … Petitioners Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and another… Respondents. ___________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1No. For the petitioners : Ms Anjli Soni Verma, Advocate, for petitioners No. 1, 2, 3 and 5. For the respondents : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. A.G., with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A.G. for respondent No.1. Mr. Lokender Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge (oral). Though petitioner No.4 Shri Joban Singh Pathania, is reported to have died, yet in view of the nature of the judgment that is proposed to be passed in the present petition, there is no need to bring his legal representatives on record as the benefit of the judgment shall also accrue to them. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 2. The petition has been filed on the following prayers:- “i. That the provisions of notification dated 31-5-2001 (Anneuxre/A-11) issued by the respondent no. 1 vide which the post of Junior Assistants have been declared to be filled up by placement to the extent 100% out of the clerks and provisions of clarificatory instructions issued vide letter dated 31-11- 2001 (Annexure/A-10) may kindly be declared illegal ultra vires, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, unconstitutional and unsustainable in the eye of law. ii. That the office order dated 16-4-2002 (Annexure A-10) & 3-2-2003 (Annexure A-13) issued by the respondent No.2 may kindly be quashed.” 3. In reply on behalf of respondent No.2- University, which is the contesting respondent, the following stand has been taken vide para 3:- “Impugned order against which the application is made: The respondent University (Respondent No.2) is following the Himachal Pradesh Govt. in the matter of pay scales and the H.P. Govt. (Respondent No.1) is following the Punjab pattern and in reply to para 3, the policy of the State Govt. is given in supra para of preliminary submission. The applicants were promoted as Junior Assistants in the respondent 3 university in pursuance of a policy of H.P. State Govt. But the State Govt. instead of promotion has decided to place the Clerks/Sr. Clerks as Junior Assistants vide its notification No. Fin.(PR)B(7)-1/98-II dated 31.5.2001 enclosed with the Original Application as Annexure A-9. Accordingly, the respondent university vide its notification No. 10-6/85-CSK- HPKV(Estt.)/22325/552 dated 16.4.2002 had placed the applicants as Junior Assistant in place of original promotion as Junior Assistant as is evident from Annexure A-8 (attached with OA). As such the pay fixation benefits given under FR 22(1)(a)(1) have been withdrawn subject to the conditions that arrear paid on account of promotion up to 30.5.2001 will not be effected. However, the benefit of FR 22 (1)(a)(1) will cease on account of placement of the applicants w.e.f. 31.5.2001. Even on the basis of aforesaid Annexure A-9 of H.P. Govt. the respondent University has adopted the same anology as notified vide notification No. 10-6/85- CSKV/Estt/38966/39192 dated 6.6.2002 attached herewith as Annexure R-1.” 4. The learned counsel for the surviving petitioners submits that the case of the petitioners including deceased petitioner No.4, Shri Joban Singh Pathania, is covered under the judgment dated 30.11.2010, rendered by a learned Single Judge of this 4 Court in CWP(T) No. 8451 of 2008, Ram Lal Sharma and others vs. State of H.P. and another. 5. In view of the above, if on facts, the case of the petitioners including deceased petitioner No.4, Shri Joban Singh Pathania, is covered under the judgment referred to here-in-above in CWP(T) No. 8451 of 2008 and the same has attained finality and has been implemented and they are also similarly situate, they shall be treated similarly without any discrimination and benefit of the said judgment shall be extended to petitioners No. 1 to 3 and 5 and legal representatives of deceased petitioner No.4, Shri Joban Singh Pathania, within three months from the date of production of copies of this judgment and the judgment referred to here-in-above, by petitioners No. 1 to 3 and 5/LRs of deceased petitioner No. 4, Shri Joban Singh Pathania, before the second respondent, after affording an opportunity of being heard to them/their authorized representative, if so desired. 6. The petition so also pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. 3rd August, 2011. Lsp*