IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 10012 of 2008. Decided on 06.04.2011 Ramesh Kumar and another. ..…Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …. Respondents. _____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners : Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate vice Mr. Madan Thakur, Advocate. For respondent No.1 : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General. For respondent No.2 : Mr. G.D. Sharma, Advocate. V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7 (i) and (ii) : “ i) That the provision of notification dated 31.5.2001 (Annexure A-7) issued by the respondent No.1 vide which the post of Junior Assistants have been declared to be filled up by placement to the extent of 100% out of the Clerks and provision of clarificatory instructions issued vide letter dated 3.11.2001 (Annexure A-8) may kindly be declared illegal, ultra virus, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, unconstitutional and unsustainable in the eyes of law. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 ii) The office order dated 27.9.2001 (Annexure A-6) and order dated 31.1.2002/27.2.2002 (Annexure A-9) issued by the respondent No.2 in pursuance of the notification dated 31.5.2001 (Annexure A-7) and clarificatory instructions dated 3.11.2001 (Annexure A- 8) may kindly be quashed. ” 2. In reply on behalf of respondent No.1, the following stand has been taken vide paras 3 and 6 (iv) to (vii) : “ 3. That the present original application is not maintainable in this Hon’ble Tribunal because of the fact that the applicants have rightly been re-fixed by giving the benefit of replacement as Jr. Asstt. The applicants initially were promoted as Jr. Asstts and got the benefit under Rule FR-22 which was later converted into placement. After converting the promotion into placement the benefit of FR 22 is not admissible. Therefore, the respondent No.1 has rightly issued Annexure A-8 by giving detailed instructions to all administrative secretaries as well as to all the Head of Departments. Hence the present Original is liable to be dismissed. (iv-vii) That in reply to these paras, it is respectfully submitted that clerks were placed in pre-revised pay scale of 950- 1800, 1200-3120 designated as Jr. Asstt 1500-2700 designated as Jr. Asstts were allowed revised pay scale equivalent to 3120-5160, 4020-6200 and Rs.5000-8100 respectively. Thereafter vide notification 3 dated 1.9.1988, the cadre of clerk on 1.1.1996 was bifurcated on ratio of 50 50 i.e. 50% posts of clerk were allowed the pay scale of 3120-5160 and remaining 50% posts were designated as Jr. Asstts in the pay scale of 4400-7000 with the rider that the post of Jr. Asstts shall be filled up by promotion to the extent of 100% from amongst the clerks. Thereafter the applicants were given the benefit accordingly and Govt. of H.P vide Annexure A-8 issued a clarification regarding bifurcation of cadre of clerks and further clarified at page 2 column 2 of Annexure A/8 that in case of such employees who were earlier promoted as Jr. Asstt under the then instructions and are eligible to be placed as Jr. Asstts as per revised instructions dated 31.5.2001, such incumbents are to be placed as Jr. Asstts from due date and the pay shall be re-fixed after ordering placement from the due date in the placement scale of Rs.4400-7000. However, recoveries of amount already paid to such incumbents from the date of promotion to 31.5.2001 shall not be effected and pay of such incumbents will be admissible at reduced rate w.e.f. 31.5.2001. Therefore, the pay of the applicants has rightly been refixed in view of directions issued by Govt. vide Annexure A/8.” 3. The learned vice counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits at the very outset that the case of the petitioners is covered under judgment dated 30th November, 4 2010, rendered by this Court in CWP (T) No. 8451 of 2008, titled Ram Lal Sharma and others vs. State of H.P and another. 4. In view of the above, if on facts, the case of the petitioners is covered under the judgment referred to hereinabove, in CWP (T) No.8451 of 2008 and they are similarly situate, they shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and the benefit of the said judgment shall be extended to them within three months from the date of production of copies of this judgment and the judgment referred to hereinabove by the petitioners. 5. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP (s), if any. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 6th April, 2011. cs