IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 5556 of 2008 Decided on : 09.11.2010 Madan Lal and others ..…Petitioners. Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Avinash Jaryal, Advocate. For respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General. V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs vide para 7 (1) to (3):- “(1) That respondents may be directed to pay the salary/wages of Assistant Pipe Fitters to the applicants on the principles of equal pay for the equal work. (2) That respondents may be directed to pay the arrears in wages from the date of entitlement. (3) That regularization rules with regard to the daily paid Assistant Pipe Fitter and Pipe Fitters being against the principles of law, equity and natural justice. Hence liable to be quashed and the same may be set aside/quashed.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 2. In reply on behalf of the respondents, the following averments have been set up vide paras 3 and 6(II) to (IV):- “(3) The contents of this para are admitted to the extent that applicants are working as a workcharged Assistant Pipe Fitters w.e.f 1995 and rest of the contents of the para are denied. It is submitted that the applicants are being paid the pay scale of Assistant pipe fitters granted to them as per Notification No. IPH-ES-III-S/C/distribution of posts 3631-3649 dated :-11.1.94 and further Revised vide Notification No. Fin.Department (PR)B(7)-1/98 dated:- 20.1.98 w.e.f 1.1.96 copy of which is appended as Annexure–RF & RG respectively. 6(II) Contents of this para are admitted to be correct. It is however submitted that applicants were entitled to be regularized as a workcharge beldar as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadya case, but ad the pay scale of Assistant Pipe Fitters and that of the Beldars are equal as such, they have regularized as a workcharged Assistant Pipe Fitters. (III) The contents of this para are admitted to the extent that applicants were regularized as Assistant Pipe Fitters workcharged and working as such and also being paid the salary of workcharged Assistant pipe fitters. (IV) The contents of this para are admitted. It is however submitted that pay scale of workcharged Assistant pipe fitters and that of the beldars (workcharged) are equal and the applicants are being paid the salary of the Assistant pipe fitters (W/C).” 3. It appears that while the petitioners were working as Assistant Pipe Fitters on daily wages they were getting daily wages which were higher than that of daily waged beldars. 3 However, on regularisation as Assistant Pipe Fitters the petitioners have been placed in a pay scale which is equal to that of regular beldars. On this premise, the petitioners claimed that since earlier when they were working as daily waged Asstt. Pipe Fitters they were getting higher daily wages than that of daily waged beldars, but on regularization both these categories have been brought alike and even in the same scale, which is according to them discriminatory in nature. However, the fact remains that the matter with regard to grant of pay scales falls within the domain of the executive wing of the State. To be explicit, these matters are firstly considered by the Pay Commission and as and when reports are accepted by the concerned Governments, same are implemented. It is settled law that the courts do not have power to fix the pay scales. 4. However, it shall be open to the petitioners to make representation(s) to respondent No.1 for ventilating their grievances, if so advised and the same shall be dealt with and disposed of by the said respondent in accordance with law within a period of three months from receipt of the representation(s) along with copy of this judgment within one month from today. 5. 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*