IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.14146 /2008 Decided on:1.4.2011 _____________________________________________ Sudesh Kumar Chandra. …Petitioner. Versus H.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board …Respondent. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ritta Goswami, Advocate. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner was appointed as Leather Mistry in the pay scale of ` 3120-5160 pursuant to interview held on 12.3.1998. Appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 17.3.1998. He joined his duties on 19.8.1998. In the seniority list, issued vide Annexure A-6, pay scale of the petitioner has been reflected to be ` 3120-5160. Petitioner is aggrieved by the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 issuance of Annexures A-9, A-10 and A-11 whereby the pay scale has been reduced from ` 3120-5160 to ` 2720-4260. 2. Ms. Ranjana Parmar has strenuously argued that the petitioner has been appointed as Leather Mistry in the pay scale of ` 3120-5160, as per appointment letter and the same could not be reduced to his detriment. She has placed strong reliance upon Annexure A-12 dated 12.1.1998 whereby the pay scale of the Leather Mistry has been revised from ` 950- 1800 to ` 3120-5160. 3. Ms. Ritta Goswami has vehemently argued that petitioner was only entitled to pay scale of ` 2720-4260. According to her, pay scale of ` 3120-5160 was given erroneously to the petitioner, which has been withdrawn after issuing him show cause notice. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. It is not in dispute that in the appointment letter issued to the petitioner on 17.3.1998, pay scale of ` 3120- 5160 has been mentioned. Petitioner joined his duties on 19.9.1998. He has also exercised his option to be appointed as Leather Mistry, as is evident from Annexure A-3 dated 17.3.1998. He was issued notice on 16.2.2006 whereby he 3 was informed that he was entitled to the pay scale of the post of Class-IV in the pay scale of ` 2720-4260. He filed detailed reply to the same on 24.2.2006 and thereafter respondent- Board issued order on 13.3.2006 whereby the pay scale of the petitioner was reduced from ` 3120-5160 to ` 2520-4140. Thereafter, corrigendum was issued on 11.9.2006 whereby pay scale of ` 2720-4260 was to be read instead of ` 2520- 4140 (with initial start of ` 2620/-). In sequel to Annexures A-9 and A-10, vide office order dated 6.10.2006, pay of the petitioner was also re-fixed. Petitioner has also made representation to the Government for the redressal of his grievance vide Annexure A-13. 6. Ms. Ranjana Parmar has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure A-12 whereby the revision of pay scales took place and at Sr. No. 15, the pay scale of the Leather Mistry was revised from ` 950-1800 to ` 3120-5160. Ms. Ritta Goswami has vehemently argued that in fact the requisition was sent for filling up the post of Leather Mistry in the pay scale of ` 810-1455 on two occasions, i.e. vide Annexures R-1 and R-2. It is averred in the reply that in fact there were two posts of Leather Mistry, one in the higher pay scale and other in the lower pay scale. According to Ms. Ritta 4 Goswami, petitioner was entitled to pay scale of ` 810-1440. However, a bare perusal of Annexure R-4 dated 26.10.1995 makes it abundantly clear that there was only one post of Leather Mistry in the respondent-Board, which was lying vacant due to retirement of an incumbent since 1990. The respondent-Board had sought approval of the State to fill up this post. 7. Petitioner has been granted pay scale of ` 3120- 5160 at the time of his appointment on 17.3.1998. The same has been sought to be revised belatedly by issuing notice on 16.2.2006. Respondent-Board had taken a conscious decision to grant pay scale of ` 3120-5160 to the petitioner and the same could not be reduced after a gap of 8 years to his detriment. There was only one post available, as is clear from the record and the pay scale of the same has, in fact, been revised from ` 950-1800 to 3120-5160, as per Annexure A-12 dated 12.11.1998. There is no merit in the contention of the respondent-Board that the petitioner was appointed against Class-IV post, as is evident from the duties discharged by the petitioner, as per Annexures A-4 and A-5. Even in the seniority list issued vide Annexure A-6, the pay scale of the petitioner has been referred to as ` 3120-5160. 5 8. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexures A-9, A-10 and A-11 dated 13.3.2006, 11.9.2006 and 6.10.2006, respectively are quashed and set aside. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 1.4.2011 *awasthi*