IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 5856 of 2008 Decided on : 09.11.2010 Bansi Lal Verma and others ..…Petitioners. Versus Registrar, Himachal Pradesh … Respondents. University and another Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Goverdhan Sharma, Advocate. For respondents : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate. V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs vide para 7 (i) to (iii):- “(i) That notification No. 9-1/98-HPU(Genl.) dated 29.10.98 (Annexure P-6) be quashed being against the principles of natural justice and violative of fundamental rights as the Pay scales and emoluments of the applicants have been reduced under this notification. (ii) That the applicants be deemed to have been promoted as Junior Assistants in the grade of Rs. 5000- 8100 on 1.1.1996. (iii) That the office order dated 7.12.98 (Annexure P-1) being arbitrary and irrational and violative of the rules and fundamental rights be quashed.” 2. In reply on behalf of the respondents, the following averments have been set up vide paras 7(b)-(d) and (e), (f), (g), (h) &(i):- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.` 2 “(7) (b)-(d) The notification dated 17th January and 23 January, 1998 was a scale to scale conversion. The applicants were placed in the scale of Rs. 5000-8100 with the stipulation clear on the order that pay fixation is provisional and subject to change as may be warranted on the basis of clarification, if any, received from time to time and also subject to change on the basis of clarification, if any, received from time to time and also subject to change on the basis of factual error and subject to recoveries/adjustment, if the same is not found in order at any stage. The copy of order was made available to all individual concerned. Those who were already Senior Clerk and Junior Assistant on 1.1.96, in the pre-revised scale, they shall be given revised equivalent of pre-revised pay, as a measure personal to them. After 1.1.1996 the entire cadre of Clerks/Sr.Clerks/Junior Assistants in the ratio of 50:50 in the pay scale of Rs.3120-5160 and 4400- 7000 respectively as the category of Sr. Clerk has been abolished in revised pay scale, steps for necessary amendments in the Recruitment & Promotion Committee rules is being taken as and when meeting of Executive Council takes place. (7) (e), (f), (g), (h) & (i) After 1.1.1996, on the availability of the resultant posts shall be filled up by promotion to the extent of 100% from amongst the Clerks who have an experience of 5 years in the cadre. The applicants who have been re- designated as Jr. assistant w.e.f 1.1.1996 are senior to 66 clerks who have been subsequently promoted as Junior Assistant and shall remain so except that the pay scales of such re-designated Jr. Assistant shall be Rs.4000-7000, superseding their earlier provisional pay scale of Rs. 5000-81000 and their pay can be stepped upto their juniors 3 wherever such a need may arise. There has been no violation of any law or rules as the pay fixation orders have been issued in accordance with the revised pay scales in the State Government pattern and as per its provisions the pay scale of Rs.5000- 8100 does not exist after 1.1.1996 and applicants were initially placed in the scale of Rs. 1500-2700 as Jr. Assistants after 1.1.96, in accordance with pre- revised scales. As per the Notification dated 29.10.1998. The revised pay fixation orders were issued after taking into considerations representation received from the incumbents.” 3. It shall be appropriate to notice certain undisputed facts first. The petitioners at the relevant time were working as Junior Assistants on the establishment of the respondent-University. Consequent upon implementation of revision of pay scales w.e.f 1.1.1996, an Office Order dated 6.2.1998, Annexure P-5 was issued by the respondent-University, whereby, Junior Assistants were granted pay scale of Rs.5000-8100. However, later on, on receipt of a notification from the State Government, vide an office order dated 7.12.1998, Annexure P-1, the aforesaid pay scale of Rs.5000-8100 was fixed at Rs.4400-7000 in supersession of the earlier office order dated 6.2.1998, Annexure P-5, referred to here-in-above. Clarification on the basis of which the pay scale was brought down from Rs.5000-8100 to Rs.4400-7000 finds mention in notification dated 24.1.2002, issued by the respondent-University, a copy of which has been brought on record by the learned counsel for the respondent-University, which in turn is based on a letter dated 3.11.2001, received from the F.C.-cum-Secretary 4 (Finance) to the Government of H.P., which forms part of the notification dated 24.1.2002. 4. Against the above backdrop, 36 similarly situate Junior Assistants challenged the aforesaid downgrading of pay scale from Rs.5000-8100 to Rs.4400-7000, before the erstwhile H.P. state Administrative Tribunal and were successful in obtaining stay of operation of the aforesaid office order dated 7.12.1998, Annexure P-1, whereby the pay scale was brought down from Rs.5000-8100 to Rs.4400-7000. Resultantly, vide office order dated 28.7.2000, issued by the respondent-University , copy of which has also been brought on record by the learned counsel for the petitioners, 29 similarly situate Junior Assistants mentioned therein excluding those at Sr. Nos. 19, 21, 24, 27 (petitioners herein) and 34 to 36 were allowed to continue and draw higher pay scale of Rs. 5000-8100, subject to the decision of the Administrative Tribunal. It is submitted at the bar by Mr. Goverdhan Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners that later on after abolition of the State Administrative Tribunal and transfer of the matters pending before it to this Court, one of the Original Applications being CWP(T) No. 5461 of 2008, has since been withdrawn by the petitioners vide order dated 31.5.2010, copy of which has been brought on record. The learned counsel further submits at the bar that insofar as the aforesaid 29 Junior Assistants are concerned no recovery has been effected by the respondent-University from them on account of the difference of the lower and higher pay scale as above. Thus, in nutshell, 5 according to the learned counsel, it is only the petitioners who have been discriminated. 5. Per contra, it is stated by Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the respondents that recoveries have not been effected from the aforesaid 29 similarly situate Junior Assistants for the period upto 31.05.2001. 6. In view of the above, it shall be expedient and in the interest of justice to order that subject to the petitioners making representation(s) to the respondents along with copy of this judgment within one month from today, respondent No.1 shall take an appropriate decision in the matter within three months, taking into consideration the facts highlighted here-in-above, particularly, vis-à-vis the similarly situate persons as aforesaid and also keeping in view the aforesaid notification dated 24.1.2002. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 9th November, 2010. Lsp*