1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 8973 of 2008 Date of decision: 23.12.2010 ________________________________________________________________ Amrik Singh .....Petitioner. Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide paras 7(i) to (iii) : “(i) That the respondents maybe directed to grant annual increments to the applicant and alswo release already withheld increments right from the year 1996 along with arrears without any further delay. (ii) That the respondents may also be directed not to withhold annual increments of the applicant in the pay-scale of a Helper in future. (iii) That the respondents may also be directed to pay interest on the arrears of increments 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 withheld at the rate fixed by the nationalized banks.” 2. In reply on behalf of the respondents, the following stand has been taken vide para 6(v): “ Contents of this para as stated are wrong hence denied. It is submitted that the last pay drawn by the applicant was protected, however, he was placed in the scale of Rs.2720-4400/-, which was the scale for a Helper and on this scale, the increments have been granted from time to time as per the detail given as under: Rs. 4400/- w.e.f. 3.10.1996 Rs. 4550/- w.e.f. 1.10.1997 Rs. 4700/- w.e.f. 1.10.1998 Rs.4850/- w.e.f. 1.10.1999 (Annual Increments) Rs. 5000/- w.e.f. 1.10.2000 Rs. 5160/- w.e.f. 1.10.2001 Rs. 5320/- w.e.f. 1.10.2002 But the basic pay of the applicant could not increase due to the fact that he has reached the stage of Rs.5320/- w.e.f. 1.10.2002. The basic pay of the applicant will definitely increase in the coming years on the grant of increment, as such, at present, the applicant is not entitled for any relief(s) whatsoever.” 3. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as driver on the establishment of the respondents. It was during the course of his employment with the respondents that he suffered some infirmity due to which his job profile was changed from driver to helper,but his pay as driver was protected. If it was so, the petitioner could not have been denied annual increments admissible to him in the pay 3 scale of driver as has been held in Kunal Singh versus Union of India and others, (2003)4 Supreme Court Cases 524 . 4. In view of the above, the petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to grant annual increments admissible to the petitioner in the pay scale of driver from due dates and arrears on this count be paid to him within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner, failing which interest @ 9% per annum shall be payable. 5. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 23nd December, 2010 (Jai)