IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 8767 of 2008 Judgment reserved on: 28.02.2011 Date of decision: 01.03.2011 Parkash Chand & another …Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and others. ....Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge The petitioners have prayed mainly the following reliefs:- (i) That Annexure A-1 as passed by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set-aside and the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the same grade to the applicants as has been allowed to counter parts of the applicants, who were appointed on the same dates with the respondents department and were regularised alongwith the applicants. (ii) The respondents may kindly also be directed to grant all the monetary benefits including the designation of Junior Technicians (Mason) to the applicants w.e.f. 1.1.1996 which has been granted alongwith Grade-I – 20% and Grade-II i.e. 30% to their counter parts working in the respondents department. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed as Masons with the respondent-Department on work- charged basis w.e.f. 1.1.1994 in Circle Dharamshala. Their services were regularised on 19.6.2001. Gurla Ram, Duni Chand, Kirlu Ram, Roshan Lal, Prabhat Chand etc. were also appointed on 1.1.1994 the date on which the petitioners were appointed. However, excluding petitioners, Gurla Ram etc. have been granted the pay scale of ` 4020 - 6200. The petitioners have submitted that initially all of them were granted the pay scale of ` 950 /- which was revised to ` 1050/- and then to ` 3120 – 5160. On 29.7.2002 vide office order Annexure A-1, Pahar Singh, Kehar Singh, Gurla Ram, Duni Chand, Kirlu Ram, Roshan Lal and Prabhat Singh were granted Grade-II 30% scale i.e. ` 4020 – 6200 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 with designation as Junior Technician (Mason). The petitioners submitted objections against office order dated 29.7.2002 for not granting them the same scale but the objections of the petitioners have not been decided. 3. It is also the case of the petitioners that seniority position of the officials has been given in office order Annexure A-2 which discloses that many officials including petitioners were appointed on 1.1.1994. In these circumstances, there is no reason to deny the petitioners the scale and designation which has been given to other officials who were appointed on 1.1.1994. The petitioners were given the pay scale of ` 3120 – 5160 as per office order Annexure A-2. 4. It has been alleged that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, the benefit of pay scale of ` 4520-7220 in Grade I and ` 4020 – 6200 in Grade-II has been wrongly withheld from 3 the petitioners. It has not been appreciated that the persons to whom these grades have been allowed have joined on the same date when the petitioners alongwith their counterparts were appointed in the respondent-Department. The respondents have not taken into consideration the doctrine of promissory estoppel and well known principle of legitimate expectation. The respondents have not applied their mind properly to the case of the petitioners. The petitioners and their counterparts were initially put in the same scale of ` 950/- which was revised to ` 3120/- lateron. They were drawing the same scale but the respondents vide office order dated 29.7.2002 Annexure A-1 without any justification withheld the grades from petitioners which were given to their counterparts. It is the case of the petitioners that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 5. The respondents have filed reply in which they have stated that Government vide Notification No. IPH(A)2(B)9-5/99 bifurcated the cadre of Technicians as on 1.1.1996 in accordance with the guidelines contained in Finance Department Notification No. Fin- (PR)B(7)-I/98 according to which senior most 20% Technicians Grade - II were to be designated as Technician Grade-I in the pay scale of ` 4550- 7220, next 30% Technicians Grade-III to be designated as Technicians Grade-II in the pay scale of ` 4020 – 6200 and remaining 50% Junior Technicians to be granted the pay scale of ` 3120-5160. The initial scale of these workers was same i.e. ` 3120-5160 but categorization has been done for these categories where the promotional avenues were nil. The petitioners have been rightly placed in the appropriate 4 scale/grade as per seniority list. No doubt, many persons were appointed alongwith the petitioners but they are senior to the petitioners as would be evident from the seniority list placed on record as Annexure R-II and they come in 20% and 30% ratio whereas the petitioners come in 50% ratio and the pay scale has been granted to them accordingly. The respondents have submitted that there is no merit in the petition and the same may be dismissed. The petitioners have filed no rejoinder. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The grievance raised by the petitioners is simple to the effect that they and many other persons were appointed on work-charged basis as Masons on 1.1.1994. They were in one category and drawing the pay scale which was revised from time to time and at one point of time they were in the pay scale of ` 3120-5160. The respondents vide office order dated 29.7.2002 gave the pay scale of ` 4550-7220 and designation of Junior Technician (Mason) to Julfi Ram. In the same office order, the respondents have given the pay scale of ` 4020-6200 to Pahar Singh, Kehar Singh. Gauria Ram, Duni Chand, Kirlu Ram, Roshan Lal and Parbhat Singh. Julfi Ram, Pahar Singh, Kehar Singh, Gauria Ram, Duni Chand, Kirlu Ram, Roshan Lal and Parbhat Singh were appointed on 1.1.1994. It is the case of the petitioners that they cannot be discriminated and they are also entitled to the pay scale of ` 4020-6200 and also the pay scale of ` 4550-7220 as well as designation of Junior Technicians (Mason) Grade-II and Grade-I respectively. 7. The petitioners have not challenged the seniority list Annexure R-II of work-charged Masons of IPH Circle, Dharamshala. 5 The petitioners have also not challenged the Finance Department Notification No. Fin-(PR)B(7)-I/98 dated 1.9.1998 providing guidelines for bifurcation of cadre of Technicians as on 1.1.1996 as follows “(i) Senior most 20% Technicians Grade-II to be designated Technicians Grade-I in the pay scale of ` 4550-7220. (ii) Next 30% Technicians Grade-III to be designated as Technicians Grade-II in the pay scale of ` 4020-6200. (iii) The remaining 50% Junior Technicians to be granted the pay scale of ` 3120-5160. 8. The respondents proceeded in accordance with the seniority list and Finance Department instructions dated 1.9.1998 and thereafter granted the designation and pay scale to the officials including the petitioners. The stand of the respondents is that petitioners as per this seniority, fall in the last category of 50% Junior Technicians and, therefore, they are entitled to pay scale of ` 3120- 5160. The petitioners have neither challenged the seniority list nor they have challenged the criteria laid down by the Finance Department for giving the designation and the pay scales to various officials. The petitioners are not entitled to pay scale of ` 4020-6200 or ` 4550- 7220 and designation Junior Technicians Grade-I or Junior Technicians Grade-II simply on the ground that they were also engaged on 1.1.1994 as Masons when some of the other officials were also engaged on the same date whom benefit of higher pay scale and designation has been given ignoring the petitioners. The action of the respondents to classify the designation and giving them the pay scales as provided in the notification dated 1.9.1998 cannot be assailed 6 unless notification dated 1.9.1998 and the seniority list Annexure R-II are challenged. But the petitioners have opted not to challenge the seniority list Annexure R-II and notification dated 1.9.1998. In these circumstances, there is no merit in the petition. The Annexure A-1 cannot be quashed in absence of persons mentioned in Annexure A-1 as parties in the petition. 9. No other point was urged. 10. In view of the above discussion, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. ( Kuldip Singh ), March 1, 2011 Judge. (GR)