IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 6674 of 2008 Date of Decision : March 17, 2011 Shyam Lal Sharma and others Petitioner Versus Director Horticulture, Himachal Pradesh and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners : Mr. P. P. Chauhan, advocate, for the petitioners. For the respondents : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- (a) It is, therefore, respectfully prayed:- that the impugned Annexures A-4 may be quashed and set aside. (b) that the respondent department and other respondents may be directed to release the pay to the applicants in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1800 with initial start of Rs. 1000/- w.e.f. 1986 and to pay the arrears alongwith the interest of 24% p.a. (c) the applicants may kindly be designated as Junior Technician. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. The respondents have opposed the petition on the ground that post of Cinema Operator falls under the category of “Operational Staff” which is strictly as per the Punjab pattern and the post of the Operator Horticulture is equivalent to that of Cinema Operator in Punjab. 3. In terms of notification dated 20.9.1997 (Annexure A-1) the State has revised the pay scale of all the skilled and semi-skilled posts under various departments of Himachal Pradesh carrying the pre-revised pay scale of `400-600 and `400-660 to `950-1800 with initial start of `1000/- w.e.f. 1986. Post of the petitioners is not included in the list annexed with the said notification. Thus petitioners are aggrieved of the same. 4. From the letter of appointment dated 30.1.1992 (Annexure A-3) it cannot be disputed that petitioner was appointed to the post of Operator Horticulture (Class-III) in the pay scale of ` 950-1800. The minimum qualification required for the said post was “I.T.I. Diploma in Mechanical Fitter (Mechanic) Trades”. In view of the same it cannot be disputed that petitioners’ appointment to the post of Operator Horticulture was skilled in nature. 5. Further the Government itself has revised the rates of wages of daily waged workers in Himachal Pradesh in terms of notification dated 28.8.1998 (Annexure A-5). Perusal of the said annexure would show that the petitioners’ category (Sr. No. 73) has been clubbed with all the categories which find mention in the notification Annexure A-1. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents/State that the post of Operator mentioned in Annexure A-5 is other than the post for which petitioners have been appointed. The contention appears to be misconceived for the reason that in terms of the earlier order dated 3 17.7.1995, copy of which is taken on record, the respondents themselves have clubbed the post of Cinema Projector Operator with the other Operators in the department. No doubt this was for the purposes of grant of daily wages but the fact of the matter is that respondents themselves have been considering the post of Operators to be at par with other Operators in various departments of the State. Consequently the category to which the petitioners belong has been wrongly left out while according the benefit of notification (Annexure A-1) to similarly situated employees. Respondents themselves have taken into account the posts of Pump Operator, Showel Operator, Air compressor Operator, Hot Mixing Plant Operator, Oxygen Plant Operator, Sand Plant Operator, Generator Operator, Dozer & Loader Operator while issuing notification (Annexure A-1). 6. Consequently the action of the respondents cannot be said to be in accordance with law. The category of the petitioners has been wrongly left out. As such petition needs to be allowed and petitioners are held entitled to all pecuniary benefits in terms of Annexure A-1. Respondents are directed to take consequential action within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. March 17, 2011 (PK)