IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.985 of 2005 Decided on : January 9, 2009 Tara Chand …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. None for respondent No.4. Per Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) Petitioner has sought judicial review of order, dated 31st March, 2004, passed in Original Application No.1365 of 2000 by the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, whereby the said Original Application, filed by the petitioner and one more person, namely Ram Kishan Tanwar, proforma-respondent, herein, has been dismissed. 2. Facts relevant for the disposal of the petition may be noticed. In the year 1988, the Government of Himachal Pradesh created two posts of Bastabardars, in the pay-scale of 300-430, in the Office of Deputy Commissioner Shimla. The posts were created in the pre-revised scale. Pay-scales of all the categories of employees of Himachal Pradesh were revised, w.e.f. 1st January, 1986, vide Himachal Pradesh Civil Service Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988. After revision of pay-scales, the petitioner and proforma-respondent were given the pay-scale of 750-1350. Petitioner and proforma-respondent claimed that they were entitled to pay-scale of 810-1440, the pay-scale, which had been granted by the Punjab Government to their counterparts. They made representation to the Deputy Commissioner. It appears that the Deputy Commissioner recommended to the Government that since the duties of the petitioner and proforma-respondent, who were Bastabardars, were similar to the duties of Record-lifters in the offices of Deputy Commissioners in Punjab, they were entitled to the same pay-scale, as had been granted to the Record-lifters in Punjab, i.e. 810-1440. The Government, however, did not accept the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner. Petitioner and proforma-respondent then filed an Original Application, claiming parity in the pay-scale with their counterparts in Punjab State, who are known as Record-lifters. 3. Respondents opposed the Original Application and took the stand that posts of the petitioner and proforma- respondent had been created in the pre-revised scale of 300- 430 and that equivalent of this pay-scale was 750-1350 and so they had been granted this scale. They placed on record copy of notification dated 21st July, 1990, by which Himachal Pradesh Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 had been amended, alongwith the relevant portion of the First Schedule, per which Daftri and Jamadar, Head Mali and Record-lifter, who were earlier in the pay-scale of 325-495 and 300-430 had been …3… granted the pay-scale of 810-1440 plus special pay of Rs.40/-. The entry appears to have not been correctly type-written, as we would be demonstrating hereinafter. The same is reproduced verbatim: Sl.No. Post Existing Revised Remaks Scale in Scale in Rupees rupees 1. 2. 3. 4. I. GENERAL HELPERS AND MAINTENANCE STAFF (1) XXX XXX XXX XXX (2) Daftri and 325-495 810-20-950-1200-30-1440 Jamadar Head Mali and Record 300-430 Special Pay. Lifter There was a special pay of Rs.20/- attached to the scales of these posts. This is revised to Rs.40/-. 4. Learned Tribunal dismissed the Original Application holding that no right of the writ petitioner and proforma- respondent has been infringed and that they had no vested right to claim parity in pay-scale with their counterparts in Punjab. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Assistant Advocate General. 6. Stand taken by the respondents before the Tribunal that the revised pay-scale of Bastabardars, the posts to which the petitioner and proforma-respondent had been appointed, was revised to 750-1350 is not correct. As a matter of fact, in the notification dated 21st July, 1990, there has been an error, while making mention of the posts of Daftri, Jamadar, Head Mali and Record-lifter. As is clear from the above reproduced …4… entry, what has been written below column No.2 is grammatically incorrect. The entry reads “Daftri and Jamadar Head Mali and Record-lifter”. Respondents had been reading this entry as if it is one entry pertaining to four categories of employees. In fact, the use of word “and” twice in this entry, once between Daftri and Jamadar and second time between Head Mali and Record-lifter, suggests that these were supposed to be two entries, one pertaining to Daftri and Jamadar, the pre-revised pay-scale of which was 325-495, and the second of Head Mali and Record-lifter, the pre-revised scale of which was 300-430. It might have escaped the notice and passed off as typographical mistake had our attention not been drawn to the original Rules, i.e. Himachal Pradesh Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988, which were issued on 7th November, 1988, and were published in the Extra-ordinary Gazette, dated 11th November, 1988. As per these Rules, there are two separate categories, which were mentioned at Sr. Nos. 2 and 3, in the First Schedule. The first category, which is mentioned at Sr. No.2 is of Daftri and Jamadar, in the pay-scale of 325-495 and the second category, which is mentioned at Sr. No.3 is of Head Mali and Record-lifter, in the pay-scale of 300-430. Revised pay-scale for both these categories, mentioned against Sr. Nos. 2 and 3 is 810-1440, with special pay of Rs.40/-. Designation of the petitioner and proforma-respondent is Bastabardar. This is vernacular version of Record-lifter (in English). This is borne out from the Consolidated Glossary of Administrative Terms issued by the Government of India. “Record-lifter”, according …5… to this Consolidated Glossary of Administrative Terms is known as “Bastabardar” in vernacular. 7. Now, when according to the First Schedule to the Himachal Pradesh Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988, revised pay-scale of the Record-lifters is 810-1440, despite the fact that the pre-revised scale of Record-lifters was 300-430 or say equivalent to the pre-revised scale of the petitioner and proforma-respondent, the stand taken by the respondents that the revised pay-scale of the petitioner and proforma- respondent is 750-1350 cannot be upheld. The fact that the pre-revised scale of Record-lifters was 300-430 is further clear by the remarks below the entries at Sr. Nos. 2 and 3, in the First Schedule, that Record-lifters, who had been granted Selection Grade of 325-495, effective on or before 31st December, 1987, will also get the pay-scale of 810-1440, meaning thereby that the pre-revised scale of Record-lifters was not 325-495, as is stated by the respondents, but this was the Selection Grade, the time scale being 300-430, as demonstrated hereinabove. 8. In view of the abovestated position, we hold that the learned Tribunal has committed serious illegality, inasmuch as it did not examine and construe the Pay Revision Rules in the right perspective, which has led to miscarriage of justice. Consequently, writ petition is allowed, impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the respondents are directed to grant pay-scale of 810-1440 plus special pay of rs.40/- to the petitioner and all other Bastabardars (Record-lifters), w.e.f. 1st …6… January, 1986, and also to give them the benefit of further pay- revisions accordingly. We direct the respondents to comply with this order within three months. Writ petition stands disposed of. ( R.B. Misra ), J. January 9, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J.