IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. (T) No. 8326 of 2008. Reserved on :26.04.2011. Decided on 25.05.2011. _____________________________________________________ Kanshi Ram Sharma. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Petitioner was appointed as Constable on 20th September, 1965. He was promoted to the post of Head Constable in 1976 and was confirmed in the year 1983. He was posted as officiating Assistant Sub Inspector on 07.12.1977 at P.T.S. Junga against the vacancy of Law Instructor. Thereafter, he was transferred to State C.I.D. on 16.07.1983 as Head Constable. He filed two C.W.Ps. bearing No. 200 of 1983 and 209 of 1984 for the redressal of his grievance, which were withdrawn by him on 25.07.1983 and 24.09.1984, respectively. Petitioner was again posted at P.T.S., Junga on 11.07.1985. He filed C.W.P. No. 427 of 1986 seeking parity of pay scale with Junior Law Instructor and Senior Law Instructor on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - work’. The writ petition was transferred to learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and was assigned T.A. No. 156 of 1986. Petitioner was promoted as officiating Assistant Sub Inspector on 03.10.1988. He was permitted to discharge the duties of Sub Inspector on officiating basis at P.T.S., Junga w.e.f. 30.07.1992. He was promoted as regular Sub Inspector on 21.03.1994. Thereafter, he was relieved on 25.07.1994 and was transferred to State C.I.D.. T.A. No. 156 of 1986 was dismissed by the learned Tribunal on 06.10.1999. Petitioner made a detailed representation vide Annexure P-10 on 05.11.1999, seeking pay and allowances of the post of Sub Inspector for the period w.e.f. 03.10.1988 to 29.07.1992 and also the benefit of pay and allowances for the period w.e.f. 15.03.1994 to 25.07.1994. The representation made by the petitioner was rejected by the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh by passing a speaking order vide Annexure P-11 on 03.10.2011. 2. Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that his client is entitled for promotion as Sub Inspector and consequential pay and allowances w.e.f. 03.10.1988 to 29.07.1992. He has also argued that his client is entitled to seniority as a result of his promotion on ad hoc basis as Sub Inspector w.e.f. 28.07.1992 to 15.03.1994. 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the transfer/posting of the petitioner to P.T.S., Junga was an incentive and the incumbents were only given one rank higher officiation for imparting legal education to the recruits. - 3 - 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner has worked as officiating Assistant Sub Inspector w.e.f. 07.12.1977, when he was posted at P.T.S., Junga. He was holding the duties of Head Constable, when he was permitted to officiate as Assistant Sub Inspector of a teaching assignment at P.T.S., Junga. He was again posted at P.T.S., Junga on 11.07.1985 and was given one rank higher officiation of the post of Assistant Sub Inspector. He was promoted as officiating Assistant Sub Inspector in his own turn on 03.10.1988. He was given officiating promotion to the post of Sub Inspector, when he was teaching at P.T.S., Junga on 30.07.1992. The one rank higher officiation was an incentive given to the incumbents to teach the recruits at P.T.S., Junga. There was no vested right to hold this post, since it was a concession/incentive. Petitioner was promoted on regular basis as Sub Inspector on 21.03.1994 and was relieved thereafter to permit him to join his duties at State C.I.D. on 25.07.1994. The period during which the petitioner has worked one higher rank officiation was not on the basis of any statutory rules. In view of this, the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of counting the services towards pay and allowances etc.. Since the petitioner has only been given one rank higher officiation to the post of Sub Inspector, he can also not be given promotion on regular basis as Sub Inspector w.e.f. 03.10.1988 to 29.07.1992. In order to earn regular promotion, the petitioner has to pass upper school course. The concession/incentive could not entitle the petitioner to seek promotion on regular basis. The plea of the petitioner seeking parity of pay scale with Junior Law Instructor - 4 - and Senior Law Instructor has also been turned down by the learned Tribunal in T.A. No. 156 of 1986 on 06.10.1999. There is no illegality in the order dated 03.10.2001 (Annexure P-11), passed by the Director General of Police. The same is reasoned and speaking. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations/discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge May 25, 2011. (bhupender) - 5 - ` - 6 -