IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No.: 4833 of 2008 Date of decision: 10.8.2010 Jagdish Chand … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr.Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl.A.G Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has claimed the following reliefs:- (i) That the Memo dated 4.8.1997 at Annexure A-6 may very kindly be quashed and set-aside and the applicant may very kindly be held entitled for the pay scale of Rs.1640-2925 as per his appointment letter at Annexure A-2. (ii) That the adhoc/tenure services rendered by the applicant from 10/11/1986 to 16.7.1989 may very kindly be ordered to be counted towards all service benefits including seniority and other consequential benefits.” 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Language Teacher on 10.11.1986 on tenure basis in the pay scale of Rs.570-1080 with initial start of Rs.620/-. This pay scale was later revised to Rs.1640-2925. It is not disputed that the selection of the petitioner was made after following the proper process. In fact, the services of the petitioner were regularized on 17.7.1989 in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2925. On 4.8.1997 a Memo Annexure A-6 was issued and it was directed that the pay of the petitioner should have been fixed in the pay scale of Rs.1500-2700 and not in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2925. The petitioner challenged this order on the ground that his pay could not be reduced after so many years. The stand of the State is that only those Language Teacher who have qualified B.Ed are entitled to the pay scale of Rs.1640-2925 and those who do not possess such qualification are entitled to the pay scale of Rs.1500-2700. The respondents have submitted that some instructions in this behalf have been issued but no such instructions have been placed on record. In fact, the Recruitment and 3 Promotion Rules only provides for one scale of pay and do not provide for two separate scales of pay. Instructions cannot override the Rules. It is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner misrepresented or due to his misrepresentation the pay of the petitioner was fixed in a higher scale. If any mistake was committed by the department the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for that after 11 long years. 3. Even otherwise the pay of the petitioner could not have been reduced after 11 years on his joining services that too without issuing notice to him. Therefore, the impugned order is set-aside and the petitioner is held entitled to the pay in the scale of Rs.1640-2925. No recovery can be made from the amount already paid to the petitioner. 4. In view of the above discussion the petition is allowed and the annexure A-6 is quashed and set- aside with all consequential benefits. No order as to costs. 10th August, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.