IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 2864 of 2008, Reserved on: 5.6.2009 Decided on: _19.6.2009. Vijay Nayar and others. .… … … Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and another . … … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting? No.1 For the petitioners: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The petitioners were appointed as Physical Training Instructors in Government Polytechnics. They were appointed in the pay scale of Rs.220-500. The pay scale of Rs.220-500 was revised to Rs.620-1200 w.e.f. 1.1.1978. The same was revised to Rs.1500-2640. w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate has strenuously argued that the post of Physical Training Instructor in the Government Polytechnics is comparable to the post of Assistant Physical Training Supervisors/Diploma Holders in the Physical Education on the basis of essential qualification required to fill Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - up these posts and also on the basis of duties discharged by them. He then contended that the petitioners were entitled to be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 at par with Assistant Physical Training Supervisors/Diploma Holders serving in Education Department. He has given up the parity with the lecturers in Government degree colleges for the purpose of pay scale. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioners were entitled to the pay scale of Rs.1500-2640 and they cannot claim pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. A bare perusal of Annexure P-1, “Himachal Pradesh Technical Education Department Class-III Service Rules, 1973” shows that the Physical Training Instructors were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 220-500. The minimum essential qualification for filling up this post was graduate with diploma/degree in physical education from recognized University/Institution. The Assistant Physical Training Supervisors/Diploma Holders in Physical Education were also placed in the pay scale of Rs.220-500 with qualification of graduate with diploma in Physical Education from a recognized University as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules called the “Himachal Pradesh Education Department Class-III (Schools and Inspector Cadre) Service Rules, 1973”, notified on 28.12.1973. However, vide Notification dated 23.3.1989, DPEs were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925. The petitioners were placed in the pay scale of Rs.1500-2640, vide Notification dated 17.7.1989. - 3 - It is apparent from combined reading of Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified on 11.10.1973 and 28.12.1973 that the minimum essential qualification prescribed for filling up the post of Physical Training Instructor in Technical Education Department and DPE in the Education Department is the same. They were placed in the same pay scale of Rs.220-500. However, the anomaly had arisen when the DPEs were granted pay scale of Rs.1640-2925, but the petitioners were placed in the pay scale of Rs.1500-2640. It is also borne out from the record that the PTIs serving in the Education Department were placed in the lower pay scale than the PTIs serving in the Technical Education Department. However, they were granted pay scale of Rs.1500-2640. The pay scale of Rs.220-500 was allowed to the petitioners and DPEs in the Education Department on the basis of their educational qualification and duties being discharged by them. The petitioners are imparting physical training education to the students in the Polytechnics and DPEs are imparting training in Senior Secondary Schools. There is no qualitative difference in their recruitment including essential qualification and duties being discharged by them. The parity maintained by the respondents has been disturbed in the year 1989 without proper justification by granting the petitioners pay scale of Rs. 1500-2640 instead of Rs.1640-2925. The parity should not be generally disturbed at the time of revision of pay scales. There should be cogent and convincing reasons for doing the same. It is true that the parity in the pay scale is to be considered by the employer/experts, however, in case there is any arbitrariness and unreasonableness in fixing/revising the pay scale, the Courts can interfere. Moreover, there is no justification forthcoming from the reply filed by the respondents why the - 4 - petitioners have been discriminated against vis-à-vis DPEs serving in Education Department. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the petitioners and similarly situate persons pay scale of Rs.1640-2925 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Needless to add that after doing the needful, the petitioners shall be held entitled to subsequent revision of the pay scale carried out by the respondents in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2925 from time to time. No costs. June 19, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma) (rkv). Judge. - 5 -