IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP (T) 14337 of 2008 Decided on: May 16, 2011 Ram Krishan Kaundal ..Petitioner. Versus M.C. Shimla & Ors. .. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Lalit Sehgal, Advocate vice Mr. Hamender Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No. 2 & 3. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner was holding a post of Superintendent Grade-II in the year 2004 on the establishment of Municipal Corporation, Shimla, when vide order Annexure A-4, he was ordered to perform the duties of the Secretary, Tax Department because that post fell vacant on account of promotion of the incumbent of that post. The order was not for promotion of the petitioner to the post of Secretary, Tax Department nor was he appointed to that post, but was simply required to perform the duties of that post. The order made it clear that the petitioner would not be entitled to any additional honorarium or seniority benefit. Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É 3. Petitioner claims that on account of his having been required to perform the duties of Secretary, Tax Department, which is equivalent to the post of Superintendent Grade-I, he is entitled to salary of that post. 4. Appointment to the post of Superintendent Grade-I is made by the State Government as the same is included in the provincialised posts, as per Municipal Services Act, 1994. 5. Stand taken by respondents No. 2 and 3, i.e. the State of Himachal Pradesh and Director, Urban Development, Shimla, is that petitioner could not have been lawfully required to perform the duties of Secretary, Tax Department, which post is equivalent to that of Superintendent Grade-I by the Municipal Corporation, who has passed the order Annexure A-4 because the said post is provincialised and only the State Government is competent to make appointment to that post. In the past also some appointments/promotions had been made to provincialised posts by the Municipal Corporation. Those were suspended by the Director, Urban Development, Shimla by an order dated February, 2002, copy Annexure R-3/1. 6. It is not denied that the post of Superintendent Grade-I is provincialised. If it is so, the Municipal Corporation had no jurisdiction to issue the order Annexure A-4, under which petitioner seeks the benefit of higher pay. Hence, the petition is dismissed. May 16, 2011 (vt) (Surjit Singh), J.