IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 4798/2008 Decided on:22.6. 2010 _____________________________________________ Baldev Chand. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. K.C. Sankhyan, Advocate vice Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner was appointed Audit Inspector in the office of Accountant General Haryana/Himachal Pradesh in the pay scale of Rs. 330-560 with effect from 24.6.1974. He was selected to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Arts) on 20.5.1977. He resigned from the post of Audit Inspector on 4.10.1977 and joined his duties on 4.10.1977 itself as Trained Graduate Teacher (Arts) in the pay scale of Rs. 220-500. The services rendered by the petitioner with the office of Accountant General Himachal Pradesh, Shimla with effect from 24.6.1974 to 3.10.1977 had been ordered 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 to be counted towards pension and leave benefits. He made several representations for pay protection and seniority in the respondent-department. Case of the petitioner was turned down vide Annexure A-5 dated 5.6.1997. 2. Mr. K.C. Sankhayan has strenuously argued that the pay of his client was to be protected and he was also to be given the benefit of the period he has worked in the office of Accountant General Himachal Pradesh with effect from 24.6.1974 to 3.10.1977 towards seniority. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has strenuously argued that the period petitioner has worked with Accountant General Himachal Pradesh could only be counted towards pension and leave benefits. He further submitted that pay drawn by the petitioner was in the revised pay scale and he was appointed in the pre-revised pay scale in the Education Department of the State Government. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner was appointed in the office of the Accountant General on 24.6.1974. He resigned from the post after his selection as Trained Graduate Teacher on 4.10.1977. The services of the petitioner, he has rendered with Accountant General Himachal Pradesh with effect from 24.6.1974 to 3.10.1977 have been ordered to be counted towards pension and leave benefits. He was appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 330-560 in the office of Accountant General Himachal Pradesh. He was offered 3 appointment for the post of Trained Graduate (Teacher) in the pay scale of Rs. 220-500. He worked in the pay scale of Rs. 330-560 and the components of Dearness Allowance/DP/Interim Relief sanctioned from time to time upto 31.12.1972 were merged with the basic pay in respect of the Central Government employees in the revised pay scale with effect from 1.1.1973. He was drawing basic pay of Rs. 380/- as on 3.10.1977. In the State of Himachal Pradesh, the revision of pay scales took place with effect from 1.1.1978 and the DA/DP/IR remained separate till 31.12.1977 and these components were part of the basic pay for all intents and purposes. Basic pay of Rs. 380/- included Rs. 146/- DA/DP and Rs. 50 as IR. When the petitioner joined in the Education Department, he was fixed at Rs. 220/- excluding DA/DP and IR of Rs. 146/- and Rs. 50/-. He was in receipt of emoluments of Rs. 416/- on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher, which was more than that of his last pay of Rs. 380/ drawn as on 3.10.1977. He cannot be paid the components of DA/DP and IR twice over. The services which the petitioner has rendered in the Central Government cannot be counted towards fixation of seniority in the Education Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge _________2010 *awasthi*