IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.796 of 2010 Date of decision : December 3, 2010 Sheel Chander Jain …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : M/s Dheeraj K Verma & K.K. Verma, Advocates. Petitioner in person. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Petitioner was appointed as Horticulture Economist, in the State of Himachal Pradesh, in the year 1974, in the pay-scale of `400-1250. Pay-scales of all the employees of the State Government were revised in the year 1978. In the case of the petitioner, revision of pay- scale took place, vide notification dated 23rd April, 1979, Annexure P-4 and he was placed in the revised pay-scale of `800-1600. It appears that pay-scale was further revised to `1400-2000, because confirmation order of the petitioner, available as Annexure P-6, shows that he was confirmed in the pay-scale of `1400-2000, w.e.f. 24th December, 1980. Another revision of pay-scales took place in the year 1986. Pay-scale of the post, held by the petitioner, was revised to Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… `3000-4500 and it was equivalent to the pay-scale of Joint Director, Horticulture. 2. On 31st January, 1988, petitioner retired. His pension was fixed, on the basis of his pay in the pay-scale of `3000-4500. After his retirement, a notification was issued, sometime in the year 1989, by which pay-scale of the post of Horticulture Economist, or the post from which the petitioner retired, was reduced to `2400-4000, which pay- scale was equivalent to that of the Deputy Director, Horticulture. However, this revision is of no consequence, as it did not affect the petitioner, who had, by that time, retired. Neither his pay was revised nor had his pension been reduced. 3. In the year 1996, Government of Himachal Pradesh again revised the pay-scales of its employees. Post of Horticulture Economist remained vacant, after the retirement of the petitioner. No specific notification was issued, with regard to the revision of pay of the post of Horticulture Economist. However, according to the General Table of conversion of old scales into revised scales, equivalent of pay-scale of `3000-45000 was `10025-15100. 4. Pay-scale of Joint Director, Horticulture, according to the revision of 1996, was revised to `13500- 16800. Before this revision of pay-scale of Joint Director, Horticulture, effective from 1st January, 1996, the pay-scale had been raised from `3000-4500 to `4125-5600, in the scheme of old pay-scales, which were introduced from …3… 1st January, 1986. Pay-scales of other cadres, in the Horticulture Department, however, remained the same, as initially revised. 5. When the revision of pay-scales took place, in the year 1996, a clarificatory notification, Annexure P-10, regarding revision of pension was also issued. According to this notification, pension of every pensioner was to be not less than 50% of the minimum pay in the revised scale of pay, introduced w.e.f. 1st January, 1996, of the post last held by the pensioner. This notification was issued on 17th October, 2006. 6. After the issuance of this notification, petitioner made representation, claiming that his pay-scale, after revision of 1996, being equivalent to that of Joint Director, Horticulture, his pension was required to be fixed, taking into consideration the minimum revised pay of the post of Joint Director, Horticulture, i.e. `13,500/-. His representation was rejected, vide order dated 27th January, 2009, Annexure P-21. Thereafter, he filed the present writ petition, seeking issuance of a direction to the respondents to revise his pension, w.e.f. 1st January, 1996, in accordance with notification Annexure P-10 and while doing so minimum pay of the post of Joint Director, Horticulture, be taken into account. 7. Prayer made by the petitioner is opposed by the respondents. Their plea is that though, at one point of time, according to the pay revision of 1986, pay-scale of the post …4… of the petitioner was equivalent to that of the post of the Joint Director, Horticulture, but lateron pay-scale of the post of Joint Director, Horticulture, had been raised to `4125- 5600, while that of the post of the petitioner was revised to `2400-4000, and despite such revision, on the lower side, of the pay-scale of the post, from which the petitioner retired, his pension was not reduced. It is also the case of the respondents that despite reduction of the pay-scale of the post of Horticulture Economist, in the year 1989, petitioner has been granted pension, even after revision of pay-scales, effective from 1st January, 1996, treating him in the revised pay-scale, equivalent to the pay-scale of `3000-4500, which was the pay-scale of the post, before its reduction in 1989. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the petitioner, who is present in person, and learned Assistant Advocate General and gone through the record. 9. Petitioner claims relief of increase in pension, by seeking parity of pay of the post, from which he retired, with that of the post of Joint Director, Horticulture. He cannot be allowed to do so. Revision of pay-scale is the prerogative of the Government. Initially, when the petitioner was appointed, his pay-scale was `400-1250, while that of the Joint Director, Horticulture `1300-1600. The fact is demonstrated by the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, copy Annexure P-3. Revision of pay-scales took place in the year 1978. Pay-scale of the post of the petitioner was …5… revised to `1400-2000 and the pay-scale of the post of Joint Director, Horticulture was revised to `1775-2100. That means after the revision of 1978 also, pay-scale of Joint Director, Horticulture was higher than the pay-scale of the post of Horticulture Economist. It was only during the revision of 1986 that the pay-scale of Horticulture Economist was initially brought on par with that of the Joint Director, Horticulture, but lateron a notification was issued in the year 1993, by which pay-scale of Joint Director, Horticulture was raised to `4125-5600. 10. Petitioner, as already noticed, was in the pay- scale of `3000-4500, when he retired. He made no representation in the year 1993, when the pay-scale of Joint Director, Horticulture was raised to `4125-5600. That means he knew, in the heart of his hearts, that the post of Joint Director, Horticulture was of higher level, compared to the post from which he retired. It was only in the year 2006, when notification Annexure P-10 was issued that the minimum pension of a pensioner shall not be less than 50% of the minimum pay of the post, from which such a pensioner retired. Since the pay-scale of the post, from which the petitioner retired, was `3000-4500, his revised pay-scale, effective from 1st January, 1996, would be the equivalent of that scale, as shown in the General Table to the revised Pay Rules, pertaining to the revision, effective from 1st January, 1996 and this revised scale, according to the Table, is `10025-15100. …6… 11. Now, according to notification Annexure P-10, pension of the petitioner should not be less than 50% of `10,025/-, or say `5012.5. It has been stated by the petitioner that his pension, as on 1st January, 1996, was `5,199/-. Therefore, he is not entitled to any increase in the pension. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of, having become infructuous. December 3, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J