IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 8183 of 2008. Date of decision: 14.9.2011. _______________________________________________________ Smt. Ishwar Bhagti ….. Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. & Ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. G.S. Rathore, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. J.S.Rana, Assistant Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, J (Oral) The petitioner has prayed mainly the following reliefs in the petition:- (i) To direct the respondents to grant the pay scale of Rs.1500-2640 to the applicant from 1.1.86 the date from which she is found eligible after the revision of pay scale in the Auxillary Nurse/ Midwife as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the said post alongwith consequential benefits including the arrears. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 2 (ii) To direct the respondents to grant next higher pay scale in the hierarchy of pay scale to the petitioner under the Assured Carrier Progression Scheme as contained in letter No. Fin.(PR)B(7)51/98 dated 15.12.98. (iii) To grant the applicant the benefit as Scheduled Tribe candidate with all its promotional and monetary benefits. 2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner joined as Auxillary Nurse/Midwife on 24.8.1986 at Referral Hospital, Rampur Bushahr. On the basis of her seniority and merit she was designated as Staff Nurse on 3.8.1988. At the time of filing of petition she was serving as Staff Nurse. The petitioner has claimed scale of Rs.1500- 2640 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 after the revision of pay scale on 1.1.1986 alongwith consequential benefits. 3. It has been stated that the erstwhile Tribunal on similar facts on 4.10.1996 in T.A. No.2/91 has granted the scale of Rs.1500- 2640. The petitioner is similarly situated and therefore, she is also entitled to the relief as granted by the Tribunal on 4.10.1996. The petitioner has been discriminated, the respondents have granted pay scale of Rs.1500-2640 to similarly situated persons. The petitioner has made representations but without any positive result. 4. The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of getting the scale under the Assured Carrier Progression Scheme introduced by the respondents vide letter dated 12.10.1998 on completion of eight 3 years service on the same post. The respondents have not given benefit of Scheduled Tribe category to the petitioner despite several representations. 5. The petition has been contested by respondents by filing reply. In preliminary objections it has been stated that scale of Rs.1500-2640 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 is not admissible to petitioner. The scale of Rs.1500-2640 was allowed to the Auxillary Nurses/ Midwives who were in receipt of selection grade of Rs.680-1120 w.e.f. 1.4.1986. This scale was allowed in view of order passed by the erstwhile Tribunal in T.A. No.2/91. 6. In the category where promotional avenues are not available, the Government has introduced Assured Carrier Progression Scheme at different stages and this benefit extended to the petitioner as per her admissibility. The benefit of Scheduled Tribe category to be extended to the petitioner was re-examined and specific instructions have been issued as per letter dated 29.4.2003. On merits, the respondents have taken almost the same stand as taken in the preliminary objections and have contested the claim of the petitioner. They have prayed for dismissal of the petition. The petitioner has filed the rejoinder and reiterated her stand. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.S. Rana, learned Assistant Advocate General for the State. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that except for the claim of Scheduled Tribe raised in the petition, the other claims of 4 the petitioner are covered by judgment dated 1.11.2010 passed in CWP(T) No.6288 of 2008. It has been submitted that in CWP(T) No.6288 of 2008 similar dispute was raised by the petitioner. The State contested the petition and this Court has allowed the petition. 8. The learned Assistant Advocate General has stated that no doubt the dispute raised in CWP (T) No.6288 of 2008 and in the present petition there is similarity except for the dispute of claim of Scheduled Tribe. However, the State is intending to file appeal against judgment dated 1.11.2010 passed in CWP (T) No.6288 of 2008. The fact remains, as of today no appeal has been filed against judgment dated 1.11.2010. In these circumstances the grievance raised by the petitioner in the present petition is covered by the judgment dated 1.11.2010 rendered in CWP(T) No.6288 of 2008 except for the benefit of Scheduled Tribe claimed by the petitioner in the present petition. 9. The learned Assistant Advocate General has stated that benefit of Scheduled Tribe has already been given to the petitioner as per letter dated 18.3.2004 of Director of Health Services, Himachal Pradesh to Chief Medical Officer, Shimla. He has also stated that copy of letter dated 18.3.2004 was also addressed to the petitioner. In view of the fact that benefit of Scheduled Tribe has already been given to the petitioner, therefore, the claim of petitioner for granting benefit of Scheduled Tribe does not survive. 5 10. In the reply the respondents have stated that the Government has introduced Assured Carrier Progression Scheme at different stages and this benefit extended to the petitioner also as per her admissibility. In these circumstances, in view of the admission by the respondents that benefit of Assured Carrier Progression Scheme has been extended to the petitioner as per her admissibility, this claim also does not survive. 11. Therefore, in view of judgment dated 1.11.2010 the petitioner now is entitled to the only relief for granting of pay scale of Rs.1500-2640 w.e.f. 24.8.1986. The respondents, therefore, are directed to give pay scale of Rs.1500-2640 to the petitioner w.e.f. 24.8.1986 within a period of three months from the date of supply of copy of the judgment by the petitioner to the competent authority. The respondents shall also release the arrears to the petitioner within further period of three months. The petition stands disposed of. September 14, 2011 (Kuldip Singh), (sks) Judge.