IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No.6217 of 2008 Date of decision : August 11, 2010 Ram Saran Thakur …Petitioner. Versus H.P. Agro Industrial Packaging India Limited and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Surinder Thakur, vice Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J (Oral) The petitioner by means of this writ petition has prayed that the respondents be directed to grant pay-scale of Rs.950/- with initial start of Rs.1050/- in the pre-revised pay-scale and thereafter the revised pay-scale of the same post as held by his counterpart in the Himachal Pradesh University. 2. The case of the petitioner seems to be based on the principle of equal pay for equal work. In support of his case, the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and another versus Chet Ram and others (Latest HLJ 2006(HP)(DB) 327). 3. Admitted facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Security Guard in the Agro Industries Packaging Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… India Limited (AIPIL), which is a Government company. At the time of his appointment an offer was made to him that he would be appointed as Security Guard in the pay-scale of Rs.750-1350. The last para of the appointment letter stated that in case the terms and conditions are acceptable to the petitioner he may report for duty. The petitioner accepted the terms and conditions and joined his service in the AIPIL. 4. Now the petitioner claims that he should be given the salary, which is paid to the Security Guards in the Himachal Pradesh University. Neither the AIPIL nor the Himachal Pradesh University are departments of the State Government. The two are separate autonomous bodies. The petitioner cannot claim parity in pay-scale with that of the employees of Himachal Pradesh University. Therefore, the authority cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no relevance to the facts of the present writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. August 11, 2010(sd) ( Deepak Gupta ), J