1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.1395 of 2001 Date of decision 4.3.2009 State of HP & another ….Petitioners. Vs. Lila Nand & ors Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. AG with Mr.P.M. Negi Dy. A.G and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. N.D. Sharma, Advocate 1 to 5. For the respondents: Mr. Ajay Dhiman, Advocate. 6(a) to 6(d). Per Surjit Singh, J (Oral) In the present writ petition under articles 226 and 227, the petitioners, i.e. State of Himachal Pradesh and Director, Rural Development Department, have made a prayer for reviewing the order dated 1st May, 2001 (Annexure PA), passed by the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in O.A No. 386/1987. 2. Facts relevant for the decision of the petition may be noticed. Respondents 1 to 8 had been appointed as Assistants in the Rural Development Directorate of Himachal Pradesh in the years 1980 and 1982 in the pay scale of Rs. 570-1080. This was the revised pay scale of Assistants after revision of 1978. Prior to that, assistants of the department in question, 1 Whether reporter of local papers is allowed to see the judgment? 2 used to be in the pay scale of Rs. 160-40 which was further raised to Rs. 225- 500 vide notification dated 26.7.1977 ( part of Annexure PB). When the scales were revised from 1.7.1978, Assistants who were in the pay scale of Rs. 160- 400 (TS) and 225-500 were granted the pay scale of Rs. 570-1080 and those who were in the scale of 225-500 (TS) and Rs. 300-600 (SG) were given scale of 600-1120. This revision was brought into being vide notification dated 5th August, 1981. Respondents represented that un-revised time scale of Assistants being 225-500, as per notification dated 26.7.1977, they were entitled to revised pay scale of 600-1120 because as per notification dated 5th August, 1981 those assistants who were in the time scale of 225-500 and selection grade of 300-600 had been allowed revised scale of 600-1120. Their representation was rejected. They then approached the learned Tribunal. 3. Present petitioners, who were impleaded as respondents in the O.A, contested the claim. They alleged that the respondents revised pay scale was Rs. 570-1080 and they had rightly been appointed in that scale after revision of pay scales. Learned Tribunal has allowed the Original Application holding that since the respondents were in the time scale of 225-500 prior to the revision effective from 1.1.1978, they were entitled to the pay scale of 600- 1120. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. From the record, following facts stand fully established. Initially there were two sub categories of Assistants, one was in the time scale of 225-500 (TS) and the other in the scale of 160-400 (TS). Vide notification dated 26.7.1977, pay scale of 160-400 (TS) (of Assistants) was revised to Rs. 225-500. That means the unrevised pay scale of the posts of Assistants to which the respondents were appointed in 1980 and 1982 was Rs. 225-500 (TS) in view of the aforesaid notification dated 26.7.1977. Vide notification dated 5th August, 1981 which was Annexure P-10 to the OA, revised pay scale of Assistants, who were in the time scale of 225-500 and selection 3 grade of 300-600, was 600-1120. As demonstrated here-in-above, the posts to which the respondents were appointed earlier the unrevised scale of 225-500 was in view of the notification dated 26.7.1977 (Annexure P-9 to the OA). From the fact that unrevised time scale was 225-500, it can legitimately be presumed that their unrevised selection grade was Rs. 300-600 and the revised scale of the Assistants in the unrevised scale of 225-500 (TS) and 300- 600 (SG) is 600-1120 per notification Annexure P-10 to the OA, as stated above. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the revised pay scale of the posts to which the respondents were appointed was 600-1120. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. ( R. B. Misra ), J. ( Surjit Singh ), J. 4th March, 2009 (sl)