IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Writ Petition No. No. 251 of 2003. Reserved on: 23.4.2008. Decided on: 28.5.2008. ________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh and another. … Petitioners. Versus Shri Raj Kumar Bassi. … Respondent. _____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Hon’bl Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. R.K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Naveen Bhardwaj, Advocate. __________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This petition is directed against the order of learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A. No. (D) 14/1995 dated March 8, 2002. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the original applicant for convenience sake) was working as Pharmacist. The State vide order dated 4th February, 1986 up-graded the post of Pharmacist to the post of Chief Pharmacist in the pay scale of Rs. 750-1300. This up-gradation was made subject to the condition that the functions and duties of the Chief Pharmacist will remain the same as that of Pharmacist and further that these posts will remain inter-changeable. His name figured at Sl. No. 23 of _________________________________________________________________ Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. :2: letter dated 4th February, 1986. He made a representation for extending the benefit of Fundamental Rule 22-C. The same was rejected. He preferred an Original Application before the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal for extending the benefit of Fundamental Rule 22-C in view of higher duties and responsibilities of the post of Chief Pharmacist w.e.f. 17th August, 1985. The petitioners/State resisted the claim filed by the original applicant primarily on two grounds; firstly, FR 22-C had been omitted on 30th August, 1989 and secondly, the up-gradation of the post of Pharmacist to that of Chief Pharmacist was not a promotion since the duties remained the same and the post was also inter-changeable. The learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal allowed the Original Application on 8th March, 2002. Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra learned Deputy Advocate General had strenuously argued that the order dated 8th March, 2002 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He had re-iterated the stand taken before the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Naveen Bhardwaj, Advocate had supported order dated 8.3.2002. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. What emerges from the facts enumerated hereinabove is that the post of Pharmacist was up-graded to the post of Chief Pharmacist in the pay scale of Rs. 750-1300. Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra had submitted that FR 22-C on the basis of which the original applicant was claiming relief has been omitted on 30th August, 1989. However, Mr. R.K. Gautam had drawn the attention of the Court to FR-22 (1) (a) (i) which has been :3: enforced w.e.f. 28th November, 1990. It will be apt at this stage to reproduce the same which reads thus: “F.R. 22 (1)- The initial pay of a Government servant who is appointed to a post on a time scale of pay is regulated as follows:- (a) (1) Where a Government servant holding a post, other than a tenure post, in a substantive or temporary or officiating capacity is promoted or appointed in a substantive, may be subject to the fulfillment of the eligibility conditions as prescribed in the relevant Recruitment Rules, to another post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching to the post held by him, his initial pay in the time scale of the higher post shall be fixed, in the next above the notional pay arrived at by increasing his pay in respect of the lower post held by him regularly by an increment at the stage at which such pay has accrued or rupees twenty-five only, whichever is more.” A close scrutiny of this provision reflects that under this provision as introduced w.e.f. 28th November, 1990, the pay can be fixed only if the post to which an official has been promoted carries duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attached to the post earlier held by him. The learned Tribunal had taken into consideration the letter dated 7th March, 1990 read in conjunction with letter dated 7th May, 1997 to come to the just conclusion that higher responsibilities had been assigned to the post of Chief Pharmacist. The learned Tribunal has recorded a finding that initially when the posts of Pharmacist were up-graded on 24th March, 1986, higher responsibilities/duties were not given. Since the new provision of FR 22 (1) (a) (i) had been notified on 30th August, 1989 and the posts of Chief Pharmacists were given higher responsibilities w.e.f. 7th March, 1990, the :4: Tribunal has rightly granted the benefit to him w.e.f. 7th March, 1990. The contention of Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra that the original applicant was entitled to the benefit w.e.f. 7th May, 1997 cannot be accepted in view of letter dated 7th March, 1990. Consequently, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge. May 28, 2008. (cr)