IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 6140 of 2008 Decided on: 09.11.2010 [ O.P. Goyal …. Petitioner Versus State of HP. & another …. Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge For the petitioner: Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral): The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- “(i) That the impugned Annexure A-4, dated 26th June, 1999 may kindly be quashed and set aside; (ii) That the respondents may be directed to grant the benefit of F.R. 22-C to the applicant from the date of his joining as District Education Officer w.e.f. 25.9.1998 and to grant arrears alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.” 2. In the reply at Para-3, it is stated as follows:- “That the present application against the issuance of letter No. EDN-H(2)B(16)4/83-vol-v dated 26.6.1999, copy whereof is already with the original application is not maintainable in view of the provisions of the Rule 22(iii) of Fundamental Rules which stipulate as:- “For the purpose of this Rule, the appointment shall not deem to involve the assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance if the post to which it is made is on the same scale of pay as the post, other than tenure post, which the Govt. servant holds 2 on regular basis at the time of his promotion or appointment or on a scale of pay identical therewith.” In the present case, the applicant was promoted to the post of Distt. Education Officer from the post of Principal and posted at Hamirpur vide notification dated 13.8.1998 and 31.8.1998, copies whereof are already on record as annexure A/1 and annexure A/2. As a sequel to general revision of pay sales of Govt. employees w.e.f. 1.1.1996, both the categories of Distt. Education Officers/Principals were given/granted the revised pay scale of Rs.10025-15100/-. Since, the pay scale of lower post as well as of promotion post is the same and identical. That being so, the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of pay fixation under Rule 22-C of Fundamental Rules. Thus, the present application being contrary to the relevant rules is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed being devoid of any merit.” 3. According to the petitioner, in view of the departmental instructions dated 10.4.1997, he is entitled to the benefit under F.R. 22-C. There will be a direction to the first respondent to look into the matter with notice to the petitioner and take appropriate action adverting to the submissions made by the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice (Justice V.K. Ahuja ), November 09, 2010 Judge (BSS/Tilak) 3