IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 1996/2008 Decided on:27.7.2010 _____________________________________________ B.C. Ranaut. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. for respondent No.1. Ms. Rita Goswami, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge ( oral ) . Petitioner was appointed as Executive Officer in the respondent-Board on 3.4.1976 in the pay scale of Rs. 300-800. He joined his duties on 6.4.1976. His pay scale was revised from Rs. 300-800 to Rs. 700-1250 vide office order dated 11.5.1977. It was subsequently revised vide office order dated 25.6.1977 to Rs. 1300-1800. The pay scale was further revised to Rs.1775-2300. The orders whereby the petitioner was granted the pay scales were rescinded on 30.7.1979. Thereafter the matter was referred to the Sub- Committee, which was constituted by the State Government 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes on 21.6.1977 and the recommendations were made on 5.6.1980. The matter was also placed before the Board of Directors after the recommendations of the Committee on 26.8.1978. Vide office order dated 20.6.1980, the petitioner was granted pay scale of Rs. 1300-1800 with effect from 1.1.1978 (Annexure A-8). Thereafter, a reference was made by the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent-Board to the State Government on 26.12.1987 (A-14). Thereafter vide Annexure A-17 dated 13.1.1988, pay of the petitioner was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 825-1580 with effect from 1.1.1978. The representation made by the petitioner was accepted by the Secretary (Industries) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 22.10.1988 (Annexure A-22). The respondent-Board preferred a review against the order dated 22.10.1988. The same was allowed by the Secretary (Industries) on 28.9.1991 and the decision was conveyed to the petitioner on 4.10.1991. 2. Mr. L.N. Sharma has strenuously argued that his client had rightly been granted the pay scale of Rs. 1300-1800 with effect from 1.1.1978 vide Annexure A-8. He then contended that the Board had obtained necessary approval from the State Government while revising the pay scale of the petitioner as per law. 3. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General and Ms. Rita Goswami have strenuously argued that the State Government has never accorded any approval at the time when the pay scales were revised from time to time. According to them, the decision to increase the pay scales of the petitioner from time to time was in contravention of section 13 of the Himachal Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1966 and Regulation 3 (4) of the Himachal Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board Regulations, 1970 governing the fixation of the pay scales of the employees of the Board. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner was appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 300-850. He joined his duties on 6.4.1976. His pay scales were revised from Rs. 300-800 to Rs. 700-1250, from Rs. 700-1250 to Rs. 1300-1800 and from Rs. 1300-1800 to Rs. 1775-2300. These were withdrawn on 30.7.1979. However, decision was taken to restore the same vide order dated 20.6.1980 whereby pay scale of Rs. 1300-1800 was paid to the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1978. The Chief Executive Officer has made the reference to the State Government on 26.12.1987, which led to the issuance of Annexure A-17 dated 13.1.1988. The petitioner has also made representation, which was considered by the Secretary Industries and the pay scale was restored. The Board preferred a review petition and the Secretary (Industries) passed a very reasoned and detailed order on 28.9.1991. A bare perusal of order dated 28.9.1991 reveals that the petitioner had been taking advantage of his position as the Executive Officer and was instrumental himself in getting the pay scales increased from time to time without seeking the approval of the State Government. It has come in the order dated 28.9.1991 that the State Government at no given time had accorded the approval to the Board to revise the pay scales of the petitioner. 6. Mr. L.N. Sharma has failed to point out any material on record that the State Government has accorded approval to the revision of pay scales effected in quick succession. Order dated 28.9.1991 was passed by the Secretary (Industries) after the original application bearing OA No. 114/1988 was disposed of by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. 7. A bare perusal of section 13 (2) and Regulations 3 and 4 makes it abundantly clear that prior sanction of the Government is to be taken for fixing the scales of pay in respect of posts, the maximum of the salary of which exceeds Rs. 300/- per month. In these circumstances, it was the State Government alone, which was competent to prescribe the scale of the post of Executive Officer. Since the mandatory provisions have not been complied with, the petitioner was not entitled to the revision of pay scales without the prior approval of the State Government. 7. Mr. L.N. Sharma has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure A-8 dated 20.6.1980 wherein it is mentioned that the State Government has granted the permission. However, the fact of the matter is that no such permission was granted as per the contents of the reply and the petitioner has failed to prove any letter or any contemporaneous material on record to substantiate that the State Government had in fact granted the permission. 8. Petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity at the time when the Secretary (Industries) has decided the matter on 28.9.1991. He was heard on 30.5.1989 and 31.5.1989 and his statement was also recorded by the Secretary (Industries). He has considered his representation dated 8.2.1987 in depth. 9. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 27.7.2010 *awasthi*