1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 2817 of 2009 Reserved on : 20.4.2011 Date of Decision: 28.4.2011 Bhim Singh Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner: Mr. A.K.Gupta, Advocate For the respondents: Mr.R.M.Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. Sanjay Karol, J. Petitioner has filed this petition making the following averments and prayers:- “2. That the petitioner was engaged as a daily waged Electrician Grade-I w.e.f. October, 1986 but instead of regularizing him/giving him work charge status as Electrician Grade- I, the services of the petitioner were regularized as Electrician Grade II w.e.f. 1.1.1996 vide order which is appended as Annexure P-1 to this writ petition, in the pay scale of Rs.3120-5160/- while the petitioner being Technician Grade-II was entitled to the pay scale of Rs.4020-6200/- from the date of his appointment which is Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 clear from the perusal of Annexure P-2 notification issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh on September 26, 2000 and through the said notification the pay scales have been given to the various categories w.e.f. 1.1.1996. 3. That the respondents violated the said notification while other persons who are Technician Grade II have been given the pay scale of Rs.4020-6200, the petitioner cannot be denied the said pay scale in view of the said notification. 4. That the petitioner met the concerned authorities several times regarding this grievance and he gave a representation also but nothing has happened so far and still the petitioner is not getting the pay scale as admissible to this category which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. That the petitioner has not filed any other writ petition on the same grounds before this Hon’ble Court and before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6. That the petitioner has got no other efficacious remedy except to file the present writ petition. 7. That not to grant the pay scale to the petitioner in view of the aforesaid notification to the tune of Rs.4020-6200/- from the date of his appointment as Technician Grade-II is unjustified, arbitrary and also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, through this writ petition the petitioner makes the following prayers:- 3 i. That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents to grant the pay scale of Rs.4020-6200/- to the petitioner w.e.f. the date of his appointment with all the benefits incidental thereof such as full back wages and seniority etc. ii. That record of the case may be summoned in the interest of justice. iii. That any other relief to which the petitioner is found entitled to may be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 2. It is not in dispute that vide Office Order dated 6.3.1998 (Annexure P-1), petitioner who was engaged on daily waged basis as Electrician w.e.f. 21.10.1986, was granted work charged status of Junior Technician (Electrical) w.e.f. 1.1.1997. Subsequently, he was put in the pay scale of ` 3120-5160/- and his pay was fixed at ` 3120/-. This order was passed on the basis of the policy decision taken by the Government pursuant to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhaya vs. State of H.P., (1994) Suppl. 2 SCC 316. 3. Vide Notification dated 30.8.1997 the Government revised the pay scale of all categories of skilled and semi-skilled posts w.e.f. 1.1.1996. All posts were designated to be Junior Technician and petitioner was given the job/trade that of an Electrician. For revising the pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996 it prescribed guidelines dated 26.9.2000, bifurcating the cadre of 4 Technician as it existed prior to 1996 in the ratio of 20:30:50. The relevant extract is reproduced as under:- “The cadre of Technicians is required to be bifurcated as on 1.1.1996 in accordance with the guidelines contained in Finance Department Notification No. FIN-(PR)B(7)- 1/98 dated 1.9.1998 below VII skilled and Semi Skilled category of the second schedule, in the following manner. Thus the following picture will emerge: 1. Senior most 20% Technicians Grade-II to be designated Technicians Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs.4550-7220. 2. Next 30% Technicians Grade-III to be designated as Technicians Grade-II in the pay scale of Rs.4020-6200. 3. The remaining 50% Junior Technicians to be granted the pay scale of Rs.3120- 5160.” 4. For the existing post, 14 in number, this ratio was applied to the first three, four and seven posts, respectively. In the seniority list of Technicians, petitioner was posted at Sl.No.13 and as such his pay was rightly fixed in the pay scale of ` 3120-5160/-. While doing so, the Government has neither downgraded the post nor reduced the scale from what he was otherwise eligible and entitled to, in terms of Annexure P-1. 5. The policy decision taken by the Government in terms of letter dated 26.9.2000 (Annexure P-2) is only 5 with the purpose of bifurcating the cadre of Technicians so as to grant benefits on the basis of seniority till such time proper R&P Rules are framed for selection/appointment to the post in question. Petitioner’s contention that he was selected as Electrician Grade-II is also not borne out from the record. 6. Reliance by the petitioner on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in D.V.Bapat, I.T.O., Companies Circle, Bombay vs. M/s Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., AIR 1987 SC 493, is misconceived on facts. The Apex Court was dealing with a case where only 25 out of 300 officers were deprived of the benefit of special pay in spite of the fact that all were recruited through U.P.S.C. and performing same functions, duties and responsibilities. In the instant case, the decision to bifurcate the cadre is a policy decision taken by the Government, which is not under challenge. That apart, the Government has taken the decision to designate 29 categories of skilled and semi-skilled posts falling in the pay scale of ` 950- 1800 as Junior Technicians and given benefit of higher pay scale in order of seniority. 7. Consequently, the present petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. 28th April, 2011 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge