IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 8607 of 2008 Date of decision: 07.12.2010 ________________________________________________________________ Sohan Lal. .....Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. & another. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: None. For the respondents: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs vide para 7(i): “7(i) That the impugned order Annexure P-2 dated 13/9/2001 may kindly be quashed and set-aside, and the respondents may be directed to regularise the services of the applicant as Mason Grade-I from the date he has become eligible for regularisation with all consequential benefits, which is necessary in the ends of justice.” 2. In reply, on behalf of respondents, the following stand has been taken vide para 6(ii): “6(ii) That the contents of this sub para, except the opening contents, are wrong and emphatically denied. The fact remains that Hon'ble Tribunal vide its order dated 31.07.2000 in O.A. No. 523/91 directed the respondents to 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... consider the applicant for regularization as Mason Grade-I, in accordance with the scheme and law. In pursuance to the above said order, the then S.E./E.E considered the applicant as per the scheme and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadahya case vis-a- vis, the post of Mason and its R&P Rules that existed in the replying respondent department and consequently regularized the services of the applicant as work charged Mason w.e.f. 01.01.97 in the pay scale of Rs. 3120-5160 vide office order no. IPH-SE-(M)DW-Regularisation/ 95-9689-91 dated 24.02.98, a copy of which is appended as Annexure R-I for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Tribunal be it submitted that there is no regular post of category of Mason Gr. I or Mason Grade-II in the replying respondent department. It is submitted that the worker working on daily wages are governed by other set of rules and daily wages whereas the regular worker/employee is governed by other set of rules. In regular establishment regular post of Mason exist only in the pay scale of Rs. 3120-5160 which is the lowest grade and there is no category of Mason Grade-I and Grade-II. All the workers Mason Grade-I and Grade-II are placed in the pay scale of Rs. 3120-5160 uniformly in the last grade after becoming regular. Thus the only post that is available in the replying respondent department is of Mason, on which the applicant has been regularized vide order dated 24.02.98 (Annexure R-I). As such the office order vide which the applicant has been regularized/granted work charged status in office order dated 24.2.1998 (Annexure-R-1) and not the Annexure P-II appended to the O.A. by the applicant. Therefore, there arise no occasio9n for the applicant to assail the Annexure P-II, which is only a letter written to the applicant, although the same suffers some ambiguity as it has inadvertently been mentioned therein that the services of the applicant has been regularized as Mason Grade-II which is the lowest grade of Mason category and there is no posts of Mason Grade-I in the Department. However, the Govt. declared these posts of Masons as technicians granting 3 tier pay scales i.e. Rs. 3120-5160 in initial grade for 50% and technician Grade-II for 30% in the scale of Rs. 4020-6200 and tech. Grade-I for 20% in the scale Rs. 4550-7200 and the applicant falls in the scale of Rs. 3120-5160. It may be stated that the pay scale in the Govt. is always governed by the recommendation of commission and acceptance of the Govt. from time to time and can not be determined by the courts. Thus, it is wrong to allege that the orders passed by the respondent are against and contrary to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mool Raj Upadhya case. This is evident from the bare perusal of Annexure R-I appended. Further, the grounds assailed by the applicant in sub paras (A) to (F) are baseless and without merit as submitted above. The policy as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India clearly explicit the conditions that the workman is to be regularized in the lowest grade and the corresponding lowest grade in the replying respondent Department is Mason in the pay scale of Rs. 3120-5160. Therefore, the order of regularization dated 24.02.98 the applicant as Mason w.e.f. 01.01.97 is perfectly just, proper and legally valid.” ...3... 3. In view of the above reply, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal position, he may certainly point out the same by way of appropriate representation before the first respondent/competent authority within a period of one month from today alongwith copy of this judgment and the first respondent/competent authority shall decide the representation of the petitioner within another three months after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the private respondents, if so desired. 4. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 7th December, 2010 (virender)