IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No.11791 of 2008 Date of decision : May 6, 2011 Ram Kishan …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Petitioner was appointed as Translator-cum- Legal Assistant (Hindi), in the Law Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh, on 30th January, 1992, in the pay-scale of `800-1400. There were also posts of Legal Assistant (English) and Proof Reader (Hindi). These two other posts were also in the same pay-scale, as the one to which the petitioner was appointed as Translator-cum-Legal Assistant (Hindi). All the three posts, i.e. of Legal Assistant (English), Translator-cum-Legal Assistant (Hindi) and Proof Reader (Hindi) were re-designated as Law Officer and their pay- scale revised to `2000-3500, vide Notification dated 20th October, 1992, Annexure A-1. Revision of pay-scale took place with effect from 1st January, 1996. Pay-scale of Law Officers was further revised, vide Notification dated Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 7th December, 2002. According to this Notification, pay- scale of Law Officers was revised from `2000-3500 to `7000-10980. However, the Notification said that the revised pay-scale of `7000-10980 shall be available to only those Law Officers who fulfil the condition regarding qualification and experience prescribed for the post of Assistant District Attorney in the Department of Prosecution. Those, who did not fulfil this condition, were to get revised pay-scale of `6400-10640. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid Notification. According to him, when he had been re- designated as Law Officer, alongwith holders of two other posts and all of them had been placed in the same pay- scale of `2000-3500, vide Notification dated 20th October, 1992, the respondents could not have notified two separate pay-scales, one for those fulfilling qualification, prescribed for Assistant District Attorney and one for those not fulfilling that qualification. 3. Respondents’ case is that when the revision of pay-scales, effective from 1st January, 1996, took place, equivalent of un-revised pay-scale of `2000-3500 was `6400-10640, but a higher pay-scale of `7000-10980 was granted to those fulfilling the qualification, prescribed for Assistant District Attorney. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Assistant Advocate General and gone through the record. …3… 5. At the time when the petitioner was appointed to the post, which was re-designated as Law Officer, he fulfilled the prescribed qualification for the post. Amendment in Rules took place in May, 1996, per which qualification for the post of Law Officer was changed. Amended Rule said that the qualification would be the same as prescribed for Assistant District Attorney, that is the persons concerned should be Law Graduate, with five years experience as Advocate. Before amendment, the qualification was Degree in Law (Professional) only. Now, when the petitioner fulfilled the prescribed qualification, at the time of his appointment and the qualification for the post of Law Officer was also the same as for the post to which the petitioner was appointed when the post was upgraded to that of Law Officer, subsequent change in the qualification for the post of Law Officer could not have been made a ground for discriminating the petitioner in the matter of grant of pay-scale of `7000-10980, which had been granted to the Law Officers, who happened to have five years experience as Advocate. This action of the respondents is not based on reasonable classification. Also it violates the doctrine of ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’. 6. It has been pointed out that now all the Law Officers have been granted the pay-scale of `7000-10980, per Notification dated 10th April, 2008. The fact that now all the Law Officers have been granted the same pay-scale, i.e. pay scale of `7000-10980, also suggests that the …4… respondents have realized that their action was not in consonance with the principle of ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’. 7. For the foregoing reasons, writ petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner be also placed in the pay-scale of `7000-10980, with effect from 1st January, 1996, and arrears be worked out and paid to him, within three months from the date of this judgment. Copy of the judgment shall be made available to the learned Assistant Advocate General, by 10th May, 2011, by the Registry of this Court, who shall then send the same, within two days, to the Principal Secretary of the concerned Department, for implementation. Writ petition stands disposed of. May 6, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J