IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No.: 3092 of 2008, Decided on: 22.7.2009. K.D. Sharma .… … … Petitioner. Versus H.P. University and another .… … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?.1No. For the petitioner: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashist, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The petitioner was appointed Librarian in the education department w.e.f. 18.3.1960. He was sent on deputation to the respondent-University on 9.12.1972. He was permanently absorbed in the respondent-University w.e.f. 9.3.1976. He was granted pay scale of Rs.700-1300 w.e.f. 1.1.1973. However, a conscious decision was taken to grant the petitioner pay scale of Rs.700-1600 w.e.f. 1.4.1980. The petitioner made several representations to the respondents to implement the recommendations made by the University Grants Commission. The matter was taken up in the Executive Council of the respondent- University in the meeting held on 7.10.1988. It was decided to wait for Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. the decision of the State Government. The State Government had decided to implement the recommendations of the University Grants Commission in the year 1990. However, the petitioner was not released the selection grade of Rs.3700-5700 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The matter remained under consideration of the respondent-University. Mr. Adarsh K. Vashisht, Advocate has vehemently argued that the petitioner was entitled to higher pay scale of Rs.3700-5700 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 on the basis of the recommendations made by the University Grants Commission, which were accepted in principle by the State Government. He then contended that his client though has been granted the selection grade, however, it has been granted w.e.f. 1.1.1988. Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate has argued that since the petitioner had not participated in two refresher courses/summer institutes each of approximately four weeks duration, he could not be granted senior scale w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The respondent-University has not chosen to file any reply. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. The petitioner was appointed in the Government College in the year 1960. He was absorbed in the respondent-University w.e.f. 9.3.1976. The respondent-University had decided to defer the decision to grant the petitioner and similarly situate persons the benefit of higher pay scale till the decision was taken by the State Government. This decision was taken by the Executive Council of the University in the year 1988. However, it is admitted position that the State Government had decided to accept the recommendations of the University Grants Commission in the year 1990. The University had taken a decision as per the arguments advanced by the parties to grant the senior scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1988. The contention of Mr. Thakur that since the petitioner has not attended the refresher courses, he could not be granted the senior scale w.e.f. 1.1.1986 merits rejection. The petitioner at the time when the decision had been taken by the respondent-University to grant him senior scale of Rs.3700-5700 had also not attended any refresher course. The respondent-University at its own level had decided to grant senior scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1988. There was no material change in the year 1986 and 1988 when the decision has been taken to grant the petitioner senior scale. The petitioner has been given the senior scale in the year 1988 without attending the refresher courses and on the same analogy, he was to be granted the senior scale w.e.f. 1.1.1986. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner at any given stage has been apprised by the respondent-University to undergo any refresher course. The refresher course can be attended only if the University permits its employees to do so. However, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner without undergoing any refresher course has been granted senior scale w.e.f. 1.1.1988 instead of 1.1.1986. This decision of the University was arbitrary. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent- University is directed to grant the petitioner senior scale of Rs.3700-5700 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 instead of 1.1.1988. It is made clear that since the petition has been filed belatedly, he shall not be entitled to any interest. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. July 22, 2009. (rkv)