IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 2877 of 2008, Reserved on: 11.5.2009 Decided on: 19.6.2009. Ramesh Chand. .… … … Petitioner. Versus H.P. Board of Technical … … … Respondents. Education and others. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting? Yes.1 For the petitioner: Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent No.1: Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate No.2 and 3. General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. Adovate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The petitioner was appointed Junior Scale Stenographer on 24.6.1987. He completed his probation period successfully on 24.6.1989. He was not granted his senior scale after completion of two years as per Annexure A-4, dated 30.5.1987. A condition was imposed vide Annexure A-5 dated 10.5.1993 that where there is only isolated post of junior Scale Stenographer, the senior scale would be granted only after eight Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes. - 2 - years of service instead of five years as prescribed earlier. He made several representations to the respondent-Board. However, his grievance was not redressed. Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate has strenuously argued that his client was entitled to be placed in senior scale after service of two years and successful completion of probation period on 24.6.1989 as per Annexure A-4. He then argued that a condition imposed in Annexure A-5 dated 10.5.1993, whereby senior scale was to be granted after eight years service on the basis of number of posts is arbitrary and unreasonable. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General and Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate have vehemently argued that since the petitioner had not completed two years of service after probation period, he could not be granted senior scale. They have justified imposition of condition of eight years of service for the release of senior scale where there is only isolated post of Junior Scale Stenographer/Typist. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. The petitioner had completed his probation and two years service on 24.6.1989. A bare perusal of Annexure A-4 reveals that an official who has competed two years service in the cadre and had successfully competed his/her probation period as provided for in appointment/promotion orders is entitled to be placed in senior scale. Similarly situate Clerks who had completed probation/two years of service were granted senior scale. This averment has been made in sub para (vii) of para-6 of the petition. It has not been specifically denied by respondent No.1 in the reply. The petitioner could not be discriminated - 3 - against by the respondents. His case was required to be treated at par with clerks who have been placed in senior scale after completing two years of service/probation. In fact the petitioner had competed two years of service and probation upto 23.7.1990. It appears from the pleadings that the respondents have decided to grant senior scale to Junior Scale Stenographer initially after completion of five years of service. However, vide Annexure A-5, dated 10.5.1993 a condition has been imposed, whereby where there is only isolated post of Junior scale stenographer, he was required to put in eight years of service instead of five years. This condition on the face of it is bad in law. The petitioner and similarly situate persons cannot be discriminated against only on the basis of number of posts. The senior scale is an incentive to employees to improve their efficiency. The petitioner is similarly situate vis-à-vis other employees who had put in five years of service and held entitled to senior scale. There is no reason forthcoming why a condition of eight years has been imposed, where there is only one isolated post of Junior Scale Stenographer or Typist. This condition of eight years is declared arbitrary. The petitioner and similarly situate persons are held entitled to be placed in senior scale after completion of five years. The employees working in the respondent-Board constitute a homogeneous class. There cannot be any discrimination while granting senior scale only on the basis of number of posts. The condition No.(ii) of para-4 of letter dated 10.5.1993 is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has made several representations for redressal of his grievance on 12.7.1991, 26.6.1992, 22.5.1994 and 29.7.1994. The representations made by him have not been decided by the respondents. - 4 - Consequently, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petitioner is held entitled to senior scale after completion of two years of service/probation on 24.7.1989. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to place the petitioner in the senior scale of Rs.1500-2640 w.e.f. 24.7.1989 and condition No.(ii) of para-4 of letter dated 10.5.1993 is struck down being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No costs. June 19, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma) (rkv). Judge. - 5 -