IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.:7522/2008 Decided on:17.4.2009 Kulbhushan Verma. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the petitioner : Mr. M.C. Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1 Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5. Rajiv Sharma, J. The petitioner was engaged for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) on a fixed amount of Rs. 5660/- per month on 18.5.1986. He has also entered into agreement after engagement with the respondent. It is evident from clause 5 of the agreement that he was to be paid monthly salary @ Rs. 5660/- (consolidated). Mr. M.C. Verma, Advocate while referring to Annexure A-5 dated 1.9.1998 has strenuously argued that his client is also entitled to running pay scale of Rs. 7880-13500. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate has strenuously argued that the petitioner was engaged by the society and his service conditions were to be regulated as per the agreement entered into after his engagement. In other words, his submission is that the petitioner cannot be granted running pay scale at par with the employees of the State Government. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1986. A bare perusal of clause 5 of the agreement (Annexure R-4/A) reveals that the petitioner’s appointment was on a consolidated salary of Rs. 5660/- per month. He had agreed to this salary as per agreement. His service conditions are to be regulated as per agreement. He cannot claim under law the parity with the employees of the State Government on the basis of Annexure A-5 dated 1.9.1998. He has been engaged by the society. The society is a separate entity vis-à-vis the State Government. The pay scales paid to the employees of the State Government cannot be made applicable to the societies like respondent No.4 and 5. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 17.4.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*