CWP(T) No. 7679 of 2008 24.02.2011 Present: Mr. M. L. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the respondents/State. Petitioner was appointed as Junior Translator in the establishment of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 16.9.1995. His pay scale was fixed at `950–1800 (Annexure A-1). He was confirmed on the said post w.e.f. 1.3.1998 (Annexure A- 2). He was promoted to the post of Senior Translator w.e.f. 15.12.1998 (Annexure A-3). 2. The Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal was established in the year 1986 and the pay scale of Junior Translators in the Administrative Tribunal and the establishment of the Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha were equal i.e. `950– 1800/1200–2100. Noticeably the eligibility criteria for the post of Junior Translator in both the establishments was almost similar. The duties being performed by the Junior Translators in both the establishments was also same and similar. 3. With effect from 1.1.1996, after the implementation of the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission, Junior Translators in the establishment of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal were allowed pay scale of `3120–5100 whereas the pay scale of the equivalent post in the establishment of the Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha was -2- enhanced to `4400–7000. The anomaly was sought to be corrected and accordingly Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal strongly recommended the case of the petitioner for equivalence of pay scale on the parity between the two posts to the State Government. This was so done keeping in view the fact that similar post in both the departments was considered to be equivalent in every respect since beginning. Parity with regard to the pay scale, qualification, nature of duties and responsibility between the two posts existed since inception. However proposal sent by the Tribunal did not find favour with the State. Hence the present petition. 4. The only stand taken by the respondents in the affidavit is that the State Government has been following the pattern of Punjab Government in the matter of pay scales. As per established principle, pay scales of the categories of post which do not exist in counter-part department in Punjab are revised by applying the general conversion table. 5. The stand of the State, in my considered view, is untenable in law. In the State of Punjab there is no establishment of the Administrative Tribunal to be established under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Master scale fixed by the Government vide letter dated 9.1.1998 (Annexure R- 1) cannot be said to be applicable in the instant facts. -3- 6. Substance of the claim of the petitioner is based on parity in every respect, which already existed between the two posts. Hence I see no justification in not granting similar benefits to petitioner to which Junior Translators in the establishment of the Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha are entitled to. 7. Consequently impugned decision of the State in rejecting the petitioner’s claim vide letter dated 2.2.2001 (Annexure A-10) is quashed and petition is allowed accordingly. Necessary consequential action be positively taken within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. February 24, 2011 (PK)