IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.743 of 2005 Decided on : December 23, 2009 State of H.P. and others …Petitioners. Versus Surinder Lal …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioners : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate, for the respondent. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking judicial review of order dated 30th December, 2004, of learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (now abolished), in Original Application No.627 of 1992, filed by respondent Surinder Lal, whereby the present petitioners have been directed to grant pay-scale of Rs.2000-3500 to the respondent, instead of the pay-scale of Rs.1640- 2925/1800-3200. 2. Respondent Surinder Lal had been working as Technical Assistant in the Department of Horticulture, Himachal Pradesh. Initially, the pay-scale of Technical Assistant and certain other categories, like Plant Protection Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Inspectors, Bee-keeping Inspectors, Research Assistants, Technical Assistants, Horticulture Inspectors (Information), Horticulture Inspectors (Marketing), was 250-450 and pay- scale of Senior Assistants, Chemical Assistants and Manager-cum-Chemists was 300-600. The Governor of Himachal Pradesh, vide Notification dated 23rd April, 1979 (Annexure P-2), ordered that the pay-scale of all the abovenamed categories shall be 320-750, w.e.f. 1st November, 1977. Thus, Technical Assistants, Plant Protection Inspectors, Bee-keeping Inspectors, Research Assistants, Horticulture Inspectors (Information), Horticulture Inspectors (Marketing), Senior Assistants and Manager-cum-Chemists had been brought at par with each other, in the matter of pay-scale. Pay-scales were revised from 1st January, 1978 and all the categories were granted revised pay-scale of 700-1200/800-1400. 3. Again, revision of pay-scales effective from 1st January, 1986 took place, in accordance with the recommendations of 4th Punjab Pay Commission, as adopted by the Himachal Pradesh Government, and the revised pay-scale of all the aforesaid categories was notified to be the same, i.e. 1640-2925/1800-3200. The said pay- scale had been granted by the Government. However, lateron pay-scale of all the aforesaid categories, except that of Technical Assistants, was further revised to 2000-3500, …3… but in the case of Technical Assistants it remained 1640- 2925/1800-3200. 4. The present respondent felt aggrieved by the aforesaid discriminatory treatment and filed Original Application before the Tribunal, seeking grant of higher pay- scale of 2000-3500 for his category also, as had been done in respect of other categories, referred to above. His prayer was opposed before the Tribunal by the petitioners, on the ground that the post of Technical Assistant is different from other posts. It was also pleaded that the respondent did not possess the minimum prescribed qualification for the post of Technical Assistant and for this reason also he was not entitled to the further revised pay-scale of 2000-3500. It was also stated that the post of Technical Assistant in Horticulture Department had been equated with the post of Technical Assistant in Agriculture Department, pay-scale of which was 1640-2925/1800-3200. 5. Learned Tribunal allowed the Original Application and directed the petitioners to grant pay-scale of 2000- 3500 to the category of Technical Assistants also. Petitioners are aggrieved by this order of the learned Tribunal and have, therefore, invoked jurisdiction of this Court, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. It is stated in the Writ Petition that the order of the Tribunal is bad, inasmuch as the respondent belongs to …4… the category of Technical Assistants and the holders of the posts of this category in Agriculture Department have been granted the pay-scale of 1640-2925/1800-3200. It is also stated that qualifications and promotional avenues for various categories, with which the equation has been granted to the respondent by the Tribunal, as also the post of Technical Assistant, are different and the nature of their duties and job are also different. 7. We have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondent. 8. As noticed hereinabove, vide Notification dated 23rd April, 1979 (Annexure P-2), the Governor of Himachal Pradesh equated nine categories of employees of Horticulture Department, in the matter of pay-scales. The pay-scale of those categories remained the same, after the revision of pay-scales, effective from 1st January, 1978, pursuant to the recommendation of 3rd Punjab Pay Commission. On the basis of the recommendation of the 4th Punjab Pay Commission, same pay-scale was granted to all the nine categories, initially. That pay-scale was 1640- 2925/1800-3200. However, lateron in the case of all other categories this scale was further revised to 2000-3500, but the category of the respondent was left out. 9. When the Pay Commission had recommended the same pay-scale for all the categories and the Government had also initially granted the same scale to all …5… the categories, but lateron granted a pay-scale higher than that recommended by the Pay Commission to all the categories, except that of the respondent, i.e. Technical Assistant, there cannot be any justification for not granting the higher pay-scale to the left out category of Technical Assistants. 10. Learned Assistant Advocate General submits that other categories had been re-designated as Assistant Development Officers and, therefore, the same had been given the higher pay-scale. 11. If for the purpose of grant of some higher pay- scale, all other categories had been re-designated, the category of Technical Assistants could have also been re- designated to bring it on par with other categories, in the matter of pay-scale, especially when the Pay Commission recommended the same pay-scale for all the categories. The action of the petitioners in not maintaining parity in the pay-scale and giving higher pay-scale to all other categories, leaving the category of Technical Assistants high and dry, is discriminatory. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. ( Surjit Singh ), J December 23, 2009(sd) ( Surinder Singh ), J