IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 11331 of 2008 a/w CWP(T) Nos. 11333,11368 & 11371 of 2008. Date of decision: 31.12.2010. CWP(T) No. 11331 of 2008. Inder Kumar …Petitioner. Versus State of HP & Others. …Respondents. CWP(T) No. 11333 of 2008. Kahan Singh Thakur …Petitioner. Versus State of HP & Others. …Respondents. CWP(T) No. 11368 of 2008. Smt. Mansa Devi …Petitioner. Versus State of HP & Others. …Respondents. CWP(T) No. 11371 of 2008. Ms. Beant Verma …Petitioner. Versus State of HP & Others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner: Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate (in all the cases.) For respondents No.1 & 2: Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Dy. AG. 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. (in all the cases.) For the respondent No.3. Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate (in all the cases.) : 2 : Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral). All these four petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment, since common questions of law and fact are involved in the same. 2. The main question involved in these cases is with regard to the release of revised scales as per the 5th Pay Commission report in the year 1996. The stand of respondent No.3-Board is that it has no funds of its own and it only can give the salary which is approved by the State Government. The State Government in its reply has stated that it has nothing to do in the matter and it is only a distributing agency for the purpose of releasing the Grant-in-aid to the said institution. However, from the reply of the Board it is apparent that the State has also taken a decision that the Board could not revise the salary of the employees. Therefore, there is inconsistency in the stand of the State. On the one hand it states that it has no concern with the matter and on the other it has taken a decision not to approve the decision of respondent No.3-Board to grant revised pay scales to its employees w.e.f. 1.1.1996. 3. It is important to note that thereafter even the 6th Pay Commission has given its report and the pay scales of Govt. employees have further been enhanced w.e.f. 1.1.2006. It cannot be expected that the employees of Boards/Corporations should work on the same salaries which were being paid in the year 1986. There has to be increase in the salary commensurate to : 3 : increase in other wings of the Government. Merely because these employees are not employees of the Government, they cannot be denied an increase in pay commensurate with the increase that has been given to employees of the State Government. This Court itself cannot increase the pay of the Government employees and the State keeping in view its resources has to formulate a separate policy for such employees or accept the recommendations of the Pay Commission, but the Government just cannot remain a silent spectator and expect these employees to work on a salary which was fixed more than 20 years back. 4. The Government is supposed to be a model employer and it is expected that the Government should be alive to the difficulties being faced by the employees of the Social Welfare Advisory Board and other such institutions under the Social Justice department. In this day and age a large number of functions/sovereign duties of the Government are being performed by such Boards and agencies. These persons who perform their duties cannot be paid a mere pittance. There has to be some nexus between the remuneration paid to them by taking into consideration the work being done by these employees and keeping in view the high rate of inflation and increase in salaries in other wings of the Government. The State cannot make an excuse that it is only an agency to distribute funds to the Boards. Once the powers that be, take political and other advantages of announcing various schemes meant for the : 4 : welfare of the public they cannot now say that they cannot pay adequate salaries and allowances to the men and women who man these highly publicized schemes. These employees cannot be paid a salary which was fixed more than 2 decades ago. 5. This court is not oblivious to the fact that it is not within the jurisdiction of this Court to decide what remuneration has to be paid to an employee. For this purpose some expert committee has to be set up. Since the State has failed to discharge its function, in this behalf I am compelled to constitute a committee consisting of the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, Principal Secretary (Finance) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, Principal Secretary, (Social Justice and Empowerment) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh who shall after taking into consideration the various aspects relating to fixation of pay fix the pay of the employees of the Social Welfare Advisory Board and other Boards falling within the purview of the Social Justice Department on or before 30th April, 2011. The committee shall while making this recommendation take into consideration the reports of the 5th Pay Commission and 6th Pay Commission also. The petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. December 31, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) (Krn Guleria) Judge.