IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No.: 6410 of 2008 Date of decision: 14.9.2010 Shiv Dass …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P & Ors. ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioner: Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J(Oral). 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the grant of the following amongst other reliefs:- “i) That the action of the Respondents in reducing the pay scale of the applicant from Rs.1640.2925/- to Rs.1500-2640 on his reinstatement on 16.11.1996(A-4) may kindly be quashed and set-aside. iv) That the Respondents may be directed to consider the case of the applicant for regularization as a Language teacher on regular basis w.e.f. 1.4.1994 as per the policy dated 6.11.1995 or similar policy w.e.f. the date of regularization of other similar and junior adhoc/tenure LT teachers forthwith.” 2 2. The writ petitioner was appointed as Language Teacher on adhoc/tenure basis on 5.12.1988 in the pay scale of Rs.570-1080. The scale of pay of the category of Language Teacher in which the petitioner falls was revised vide Annexure A-2 on 23.3.1989 and all Shastris/Language Teachers, who were earlier in the pay scale of Rs.570-1080, were placed in the revised pay scale of Rs.1640-2925. The fixation contained a foot note which reads as follows:- “These scales will be a measure personal to the present incumbents and in future Masters(TGT) be appointed as Language Master.” 3. It is not disputed that the petitioner was placed in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2925 and paid salary in the said pay scale. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 6.3.1990 on the ground that the professional qualifications acquired by him were not from a recognized institution. The petitioner challenged this order of termination before the Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 895 of 1991, which was allowed by the Tribunal and the order of termination was set aside. The petitioner was deemed to have continued in service and was held entitled to count the intervening period for the purposes of seniority etc. However, he was not granted any back wages for the period he had actually not worked. Other than this he was held entitled to all other benefits. When the petitioner was reinstated in 3 service, he was reinstated in the pay scale of Rs.1500-2700 on the ground that this is the scale payable to the TGT and the petitioner was not held entitled to the scale of Rs.1640-2925. 4. The first grievance of the petitioner is that he should have been granted revised pay scale of Rs.1640-2925. In fact this dispute is no longer res integra since in LPA No. 107 of 2009 decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 30.3.2010, it has been held that all those Language Teachers/ Shastris, who were appointed in the scale of Rs.570-1080, were entitled to be placed in the revised pay scale of Rs.1640-2925 as a measure available to them on personal basis. The original order did not envisage any difference between the teachers appointed on tenure basis or on regular basis and all were entitled to this scale of pay. Therefore, the first relief has to be granted to the petitioner. 5. As far as second relief is concerned, according to the petitioner during the period when he was out of job the State Government framed a policy to offer regular appointment to those adhoc/tenure teachers who had completed three years of service in their Districts. One such order dated 6.11.1995 has been placed on record as Annexure A-11. The petitioner claims that if his services had not been wrongly terminated he would have also been regularized. As far as this relief is concerned, there can be no manner of doubt that the petitioner would have fallen within the purview of the Scheme if at the relevant 4 time he was in service. Since his termination has been set aside and he has been granted all consequential benefits, except back wages, he is entitled to be considered for regularization when persons similarly situated were regularized. It is, however, made clear that though the petitioner may be considered for regularization from the date when persons junior to him or those similarly situate to him were regularized he would be entitled to the benefit of regularization/consequential benefits of pay only from 8th November, 1996 the date he actually rejoined service pursuant to the orders of the learned Tribunal. 6. In view of above discussion, the petition is allowed with the following directions: i) That the petitioner is held entitled to be placed and continue in the pay scale of Rs.1640- 2925 for all intents and purposes. ii) That his case for regularization shall be considered in terms of the Scheme framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh for regularization of service of Shashtris/OT who were working on adhoc/tenure basis. However, as held above, he shall be entitled for consequential benefits only w.e.f. 9th November, 1996. iii) A further direction is issued to the respondents to work out the financial benefits 5 payable to the petitioner and pay the same to the petitioner on or before 31st March, 2011 alongwith interest @ 6 % per annum. In case the said benefits are not paid to the petitioner on or before the said date, the petitioner shall be held entitled to interest @ 12% per annum. 7. No order as to costs. (Deepak Gupta), J September, 14 2010 (VT)