IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 987 of 2000 Date of decision: 28.11.2008 Smt. Krishna Sood and another Petitioners Vs. State of H.P. and another Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. B.Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: S/Sh. Surinder Sharma and Paresh Sharma, Advocates. For the respondents:Mr. P.K.Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. Per Surjit Singh,J.(Oral) Petitioner (now deceased and represented by legal representatives) is aggrieved by the order dated 17th August, 2000 ( Annexure PJJ), passed by the learned Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal (for short the learned tribunal). So he has filed the present writ petition, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking review of the aforesaid order of the learned tribunal. 1 Whether reporter of local papers is allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2. Facts, relevant for the decision of the matter, may be noticed. Petitioner was appointed as Art Executive in the department of Public Relations, Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in the year 1973. The post was Class-III. The State of Himachal Pradesh follows the pay pattern of Punjab Government employees for its own employees. Whenever revision takes place in the State of Punjab, State of Himachal Pradesh follows that and grants the pay scale w.e.f. the same day as the Punjab Government does. In Punjab State also, there are posts of Art Executives. But from the very beginning, those are Class-II Gazetted posts and pay scale of those posts is also higher than the pay scale of Art Executive (Class-III) in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner claimed that as in the State of Punjab, Art Executives in Himachal Pradesh should also be given Gazetted Class-II status and pay scale granted by Punjab Government to its Gazetted Class-II Art Executives be also granted to him and other Art Executives, employed in the State of Himachal Pradesh. He made representations to the Government, which were rejected. He, ultimately, filed an Original Application, seeking direction to the State of Himachal Pradesh and Director, Public Relations, to give him status of Gazetted Class-II Officer and also to grant pay scale, which the Punjab Government has granted to Gazetted Class-II Art Executives. Application was opposed by the respondents. It was stated that in Punjab, the duties and responsibilities of Art 3 Executives are higher than the duties and responsibilities of Art Executives in the State of Himachal Pradesh and that is why, in the State of Himachal Pradesh, Art Executives are Class-III employees, while Art Executives in Punjab State are Gazetted Class-II Officers and the pay scale of the Art Executives Class- III in Himachal Pradesh has been lower than the pay scale of Art Executives Gazetted Class-II in Punjab, from the very beginning. 3. Learned tribunal has dismissed the Original Application holding the view that the State of Himachal Pradesh is bound to follow the Punjab pattern only in the matter of pay scales and not in the matter of creation of equivalent or similar posts and, therefore, the petitioner, who is holding a Class-III post, cannot claim parity in the matter of pay scale with Gazetted Class-II Art Executive in Punjab. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. It has not been disputed that in the State of Himachal Pradesh post of Art Executive is Class-III from the very beginning, while in the State of Punjab, it is Class-II Gazetted post since its creation. Also, it is admitted that when the post of Art Executives Class-III was created in Himachal Pradesh, its pay scale was lower than that of Art Executives Gazetted-II in the State of Punjab. If it is so, the petitioner cannot claim the same pay scale, as the Art Executives, 4 Gazetted Class-II are getting in the State of Punjab, because of his post being lower in status and rank, than that of an Art Executive in Punjab State. Hence, we see no justification for interfering with the order of the learned tribunal. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ( R. B. Misra ), J. November 28, 2008(K) ( Surjit Singh ), J.