IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP (T) 9272 of 2008 Decided on: July 28, 2011 Inder Dutt Sharma ..Petitioner Versus State of H.P and others .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Hamender Chandel, Advocate for respondent No.3. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner filed this petition in the year 2003, feeling aggrieved by the order of appointment of respondent No.3 as Assistant Project Officer (Women). Case of the petitioner was that he had been working as Superintendent Grade-II, with the District Rural Development Agency in the pay scale of `6400-10640, when the post of Assistant Project Officer (Women) became available in the said Agency. Pay scale of that post was `7200-11660. Petitioner’s contention is that he had already been working Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É with the Agency and, therefore, he ought to have been appointed against the post, which carried a higher pay- scale, as he fulfilled all the qualifications. He filed Original application before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, challenging the appointment of respondent No.3 to the post of Assistant Project Officer (Women) and seeking issuance of directions to respondents 1 and 2 to promote and appoint him against that post. 2. Respondents contested the Original Application and took the plea that there were no recruitment and promotion rules for the Agency, with which the petitioner had been working and the post of Superintendent Grade-II held by the petitioner was not a feeder post for the post of Assistant Project Officer (Women). They pleaded that the post was required to be filled in, on secondment basis from the surplus staff of other departments of the government and that respondent No.3, who was working as Assistant Development Officer (Women Programme) in the pay scale of `7000-10980 was appointed on secondment basis against the post of Assistant Project Officer (Women). It was also pleaded that against the said post of Assistant Project Officer (Women) only a woman could have been appointed and the petitioner being a male was not eligible. 3. During the pendency of Original Application, an application was moved by the petitioner, claiming that he had been promoted to the post of Project Economist in the É3É pay scale of `7220-11660, but the salary of that post had not been paid to him. So, he prayed for a direction to respondents No.1 and 2 to pay him salary of the post of Project Economist in the pay-scale of `7220-11660. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5. Petitioner was working as Superintendent Grade-II in the pay-scale of `6400-10640, when respondent No.3 was appointed as Assistant Project Officer (women), on secondment basis. Respondent No.3 was working as Assistant Development Officer (Women Programme) in the pay scale of `7000-10980 at that time. Her pay scale was higher than that of the petitioner and this fact alone is enough to reject petitioner’s contention that he was senior to respondent No.3, in terms of number of years of service put in by both of them. Since respondent No.3 was holding a higher post, there cannot be any question of equating the seniority of the petitioner with that of the respondent. Otherwise also, they were working in different departments, before respondent No.3 was appointed as Assistant Project Officer (Women) and, hence, there is no question of one being senior to the other. 6. Above stated position apart, the post, in question, was meant for a woman. Petitioner is not a woman and, hence, not eligible for the post. Therefore, prayer made in the OA, which has now been received in this É4É Court, after abolition of the erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal, is rejected. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to an order, copy Annexure A-3, per which petitioner was appointed as Project Economist w.e.f. 17.8.2006 (AD). Petitioner’s contention is that he has not been paid the salary of the post of Project Economist. He retired on 30.11.2006. His claim is that he be paid salary of Project Economist from 17.8.2006, till the date of his retirement. 8. With regard to the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner, it is directed that in case the petitioner has worked as Project Economist but has not been paid the salary of that post, he shall be paid the salary of that post, after fixing his pay in the pay-scale of that post upto the date he worked as such and the arrears shall be paid to him within two months from today. Disposed of. July 28, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.