IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 4716 of 2008. Reserved on: 30.08.2010 Decided on: 21.09.2010. Shankar Lal and others. …Petitioners. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Ms. Salochana Kaundal vice Mr. O.P. Thakur, Advocate. For respondent No. 1. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. For respondent No. 2. : Mr. B.S. Attri, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Material facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioners were initially appointed as Beldars/Plant Observer. They were promoted to the posts of Field Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.400-600/-. The case of the petitioners, in a nut-shell, is that on the basis of letter dated 21.06.1986 (Annexure P-2), the State of Himachal Pradesh was pleased to order that the posts of Field Assistants shall be merged with those of Horticulture Sub-Inspectors in the pay scale of Rs.450-800/-. However, the petitioners were not granted the pay scale of Rs.450-800/- on the basis of Annexure P-2, dated 21.06.1986. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2. Ms. Salochana Kaundal, learned vice counsel for the petitioners has strenuously argued that as per Statutes 5.6(1) and 6 of the respondent-University, the petitioners are entitled to the pay scale of Rs.450-800/-, which was subsequently revised to Rs.1200-2100/-. 3. Mr. B.S. Attri, learned counsel for respondent No. 2- University has vehemently argued that the pay scale of Rs.450- 800/- has been granted to the Field Assistants Grade-1. He then contended that the post of Field Assistant is in feeder category for promotion to the post of Field Assistant Grade-1. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioners were appointed as Beldars/Plant Observer and were promoted as Field Assistants. It is evident from the language employed in Statute 5.6 that the pay scale of Technical staff (other than Laboratory staff) are to be equated with the Department of Agriculture/ Horticulture/ Forest/ Fisheries/ Animal Husbandry/ Education or where the University has evolved its own pay scales, the same will be revised by keeping in view the relative position of the pre-revised scales. In the instant case, when the State Government has issued the notification dated 21.06.1986 (Annexure P-2), whereby the posts of Field Assistants have been merged with those of Horticulture Sub- Inspectors, the Horticulture Sub-Inspectors were drawing higher pay scale. It is in these circumstances that the Field Assistants working in the department of Horticulture started getting the pay scale of Rs.450-800/-. The respondent-University before framing its Recruitment and Promotion Rules, had been following the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishva Vidalaya, notified on 27.03.1986. In the Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishva Vidalaya, the pay scale of Field Assistant was Rs.400-600/- and that of Field Assistant Grade-1 Rs.450-800/-. The respondent-University has also framed its Recruitment and Promotion Rules on 04.08.1986. The respondent-University has also placed the Field Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.400-600/- and Field Assistant Grade-1 in the pay scale of Rs.450-800/-. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 were promoted to the post of Field Assistant Grade-1 on 28.10.1987 and 02.06.1986. The respondent-University has framed the new rules on 25.08.1988. Since the post of Field Assistant is in feeder category for promotion to the post of Field Assistant Grade-1, the petitioners cannot be granted the pay scale of Rs.450-800/-. The case of the respondent-University is that the post of Field Assistant Grade-1 has been compared with Horticulture Sub-Inspectors and as and when the State Government will increase the pay scale of Horticulture Sub-Inspectors, the corresponding category of Field Assistant Grade-1 shall also get the same. Petitioners have made several representations, which were rejected on 06.09.1990, 16.01.1992, 08.10.1992. Petitioners were informed that after constituting “Technical Combine”, they cannot be granted the higher pay scale of Rs.450-800/. A bare perusal of the rules framed by the respondent-University, notified on 25.08.1988 makes it abundantly clear that the post of Field Assistant is to be filled up 25% by promotion and 75% by direct recruitment. The promotions have to be effected to the post of Field Assistant from amongst category ‘D’ employees and the post of Field Assistant Grade-1 is to be filled up 75% by promotion from the category of Field Assistant and the remaining 25% by way of direct recruitment. In fact, the pay scale of Rs.400-600/- was revised to Rs.950-1800/- and Rs.450-800/- to Rs.1200-2100/-. The respondent-University has evolved its own Recruitment and Promotion Rules for filling up the posts of Field Assistant and Field Assistant Grade-1. The pay scales granted to both the categories are different. The respondent-University has never taken any decision to merge the posts of Field Assistants with higher posts of Horticulture Sub-Inspectors. The higher post in the hierarchy from the field staff is Field Assistant Grade-1. It is true that pay scales and Recruitment and Promotion Rules applicable for Technical Staff are to be made applicable with the Department of Agriculture/Horticulture/Forest etc., however, it is specifically mentioned in Statute 5.6 (1) that where the University has evolved its own pay scales, the same will be revised by keeping in view the relative position of the pre-revised scales. In the present case, the University as per the R & P Rules framed by it, has evolved its own pay scale of Rs.400-600/- for Field Assistant and Rs.450-800/- for Field Assistant Grade-1. In view of this, the petitioners cannot seek the revision of pay scale notionally from 01.01.1978 and monetary benefits w.e.f. 01.03.1986. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge September 21, 2010. (bhupender)