IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 7144 of 2008. Reserved on: 7.05.2011. Decided on: 13.05.2011. ______________________________________________ Paras Ram and others. … Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioners : Mr. Yudhvir Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Material facts, necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioners were conferred the work-charge status in the year 1994. Their case, in a nutshell, is that they have not been paid the revised pay scales as per Annexures A-5 and A- 6, dated 20th January, 1998 and 1st September, 1998. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - 2. The case of the respondent-State, in a nutshell, is that as and when the higher pay scale to the category of Mate will be released by the State Government, the petitioners shall be entitled to the higher pay scale. 3. I have heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 4. A bare perusal of Annexure A-5 makes it abundantly clear that the pay-scale of the category of Mate was revised from ` 770-1410 to ` 2520-4140 with the initial start of ` 2620/-. This notification was issued on 20th January, 1998. Thereafter, another notification was issued on 1st September, 1998 whereby the pay scale of Mate was revised from ` 770-1410 to ` 2720-4260. These two Annexures have been placed on record by the petitioners by way of CMP(T) No.40 of 2011, which was allowed on 18th March, 2011. 5. Mr. Yudhvir Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the pay-scale of ` 2720-4260 has been made applicable to those Mates who were made work charged after 1.1.1996. The Court is of the considered view that the Mates who were conferred with work charged status before 1.1.1996 and thereafter, constitute a homogeneous class. The persons appointed before 1.1.1996 could not be discriminated against by the respondent-State. There is no intellectual differentia so as to distinguish the Mates who were appointed before 1.1.1996 - 3 - and who were appointed after 1996. This classification made by the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India while giving the benefit of notification Annexure A-6, dated 1st September, 1998. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussion made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to release the pay scale as per Annexure A-6 to the petitioners from due date, within a period of two months after the production of certified copy of this judgment. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. May 13, 2011. (sck).