IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.13593/2008 alongwith COPC No. 146/2010 Reserved on: 22.11.2010 Decided on:7.1. 2011 _____________________________________________ 1. CWP (T) No. 13593/2008 Budhi Ram Jasta. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another. …Respondents. 2. COPC No. 146/2010 Budhi Ram Jasta. …Petitioner. Versus Ajay Bhandari and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate in both the petitions. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. in both the petitions. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner was appointed as Steno-Typist in the Department of Industries on 11.4.1977. He was promoted to 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 the post of Junior Scale Stenographer on 11.4.1979 and Senior Scale stenographer on 11.4.1989. He was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 5800-9200. Thereafter petitioner was granted next pay scale of Rs. 6400-10640 on the basis of Assured Career Progression Scheme. Petitioner was sent on deputation in the Himachal Pradesh Secretariat, as Junior Scale Stenographer on the basis of letter dated 20.2.1999. He joined his duties on 26.6.1999. He was absorbed in the Himachal Pradesh Secretariat on 10.10.2000. His pay was fixed under FR 22 and he started drawing salary of Rs. 8925/. However, the salary of the petitioner was reduced as per Annexure A-2 from Rs. 8925/- to Rs. 8100/-, that too, retrospectively. Petitioner approached the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance by filing OA No. 2593/2005. The same was decided by the Tribunal on 21.10.2005 and was directed to be treated as representation to the Chief Secretary. He rejected the same on 30.1.2006. 2. Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel has strenuously argued that the pay of the petitioner has been fixed correctly, as per the provisions contained in FR 22 (1) (a) (ii), by treating the dues, as personal pay. He further contended that the petitioner has not been heard before the decision was taken to reduce the 3 salary from Rs. Rs. 8925/- to Rs. 8100/-. According to him, similarly situate persons on the basis of letter dated 26.3.1991, who were absorbed in the Himachal Pradesh Secretariat, were given the benefit by invoking the provisions of FR 5 (a). In other words, his submission is that his client has been discriminated against. 3. Mr. P. M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has justified the rejection of the case of petitioner on 30.1.2006. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner has been absorbed as Junior Scale Stenographer in the Himachal Pradesh Secretariat on 24.6.1999. His pay was fixed under FR 22 (1 (a) (ii). He was drawing salary of Rs. 8925/- till the month of April, 2005. However, the same was reduced in the month of May, 2005 to Rs. 8100/-. Case of the respondent-State, in a nutshell, is that petitioner was absorbed in the pay scale of Rs.4400-7000 in accordance with law. 6. Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel has brought to the notice of the Court Annexure A-20 dated 26.3.1991, whereby similarly situate persons, who were absorbed in the Himachal Pradesh Secretariat, were given the benefit of pay protection by 4 invoking FR 5 (a). In the instant case, petitioner was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 5800-9200 on 11.4.1989 and was also given the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme and he was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 6400-10640. His case was also required to be considered at par with the persons, who had been given the benefit on the basis of letter dated 26.3.1991 by invoking the provisions of FR 5 (a). This fact has been over looked by the Chief Secretary while deciding the representation of the petitioner on 30.1.2006. The petitioner could not be discriminated against. Equals cannot be treated as unequals. In case similarly situate persons were absorbed in the Himachal Pradesh Secretariat and have been given the benefit of pay protection, by invoking the provisions of FR 5 (a), there is no reason why the same treatment should not be granted to the petitioner and similarly situate persons. 7. The Court is of the view that the petitioner ought to have been heard at the initial stage when his pay was reduced from Rs. 8925/- to Rs. 8100/-. He has suffered civil and evil consequences. 8. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner on the analogy of Annexure A-20 dated within a 5 period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. COPC No. 146/2010 In view of the judgment rendered in CWP(T) No. 13593/2008, the present petition is rendered infructuous and the same is dismissed having become infructuous. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 7.1. 2011. *awasthi*