IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No.4519 of 2008(OA No.1591/97 Judgment Reserved on 29.6.2009 Date of decision: 21.7.2009 Kewal Krishan Taggar …….Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. and Ors. ....….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. S.D. Gill, Advocate with Mr. Imran Khan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General and Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General Kuldip Singh, Judge The cases of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal were transferred to this Court in view of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (transfer of decided and pending cases and applications) Act, 2008 and thereafter OA No.1591/97 which was filed in the erstwhile Tribunal has been registered in this Court as CWP(T) No.4519 of 2008. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 2. The case of the petitioner is that after doing Matric he obtained Diploma in Electrician Trade, Electrical Supervisor and Cinema Operator on 7.9.1960. He joined as electrician with the then Punjab Government after qualifying through Subordinate Selection Board, Chandigarh. On 27.2.1965 the petitioner was appointed as Electrician Instructor in the Industrial Department, Training Wing after selection through Subordinate Selection Board, Chandigarh in the scale of Rs.125-250. In the year 1966, the petitioner became member of Himachal Pradesh Industries Department cadre. On 1.2.1968 scales of Electrical Instructor, Draftsman, Radio Mechanic, Building Construction Instructor, Motor Mechanical Instructor etc. were revised to Rs.200-450 but the petitioner was given scale of Rs.125-250. 3. The petitioner made representations Annexures A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4, the respondents dealt with the case of the petitioner vide Annexures A-5,A-6 and A-7. It has been alleged in the petition that details of the arrears which the respondents are liable to pay to the petitioner is mentioned in Annexure A-8 but there is no Annexure A-8 on record. The case of the petitioner is also that the respondents cannot discriminate between two employees holding same posts and they are required to pay for equal work to the petitioner vis-à-vis other employees performing same work. The petitioner ultimately has prayed that the respondents may be directed to pay arrears of pay along with interest after paying equal salary to the petitioner vis-à-vis other employees performing same duties and also to fix his last pay afresh and to pay him pension on the revised pay with all consequential benefits. 3 4. The respondents contested the petition by filing reply and have pleaded that petitioner had been working under the control of Industries Department Himachal Pradesh till June, 1983. The matter for revision of pay scales from 1.2.1968 pertains to the period rendered by the petitioner in the department of Industries. The representation dated 3.7.1971, Annexure R-1 made by the petitioner to Secretary, Industries Himachal Pradesh with endorsement to the Director of Industries was duly considered and it was observed that the pay scales were revised by the government on the pattern of Punjab. The Instructors in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.125-250 had been allowed revised scale of Rs.160-400. In these circumstances, the claim of the official for revised pay scale of Rs.200-450 does not arise. The Annexure A-1 dated 4.4.1974 is not available in the relevant record which was received from the Industries Department. The petitioner remained silent for so many years. He represented in the year 1984 and his case was rejected vide Annexure A-5. The petition is barred by delay and laches. 5. The petitioner was appointed by the Director of Industries (Punjab) as Electrician Instructor in the office of Rural Artisan Training Centre, Dharampur (Punjab) in the scale of Rs.125- 250 vide memo dated 13.2.1965, the petitioner had joined on 27.2.1965. At the time of reorganization of State of Punjab, some staff was also allocated to Himachal Pradesh in the year 1966. The services of the petitioner were allocated to the State of Himachal Pradesh in the same capacity in the Industries department of Himachal Pradesh against similar and equivalent post of Electrician Instructor at the similar and same status like Rural Institute of 4 Himachal Pradesh. The Rural Industrial Training Institutes (RITI) were having State level recognition and were run under State Council of Vocational Training Scheme. There were other Institutes in Labour, Employment & Training Department of All India Level recognition, affiliation, under National Council for Vocational Training Scheme of the Director General, Employment & Training, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, such institutes were known as Industrial Training Institutes (ITI). 6. The further case of the respondents is that Recruitment and Promotion (rules) teaching norms, students admission qualifications, examination system, affiliation/certifying authorities, work and responsibilities of teachers(Instructors) of Rural Industrial Training Institutes, Industries Department and Industrial Training Institutes of Labour, Employment and Training Department were altogether different as the pay scale of the Instructors of Rural Industrial Training Institutes Industries Department of the category of the petitioner was Rs.125-250 and those Instructors of Industrial Training Institutes of Labour, Employment & Training Department was Rs.160-330 before 1.2.1968 which were revised to Rs.160-400 and Rs.200-450 respectively from 1.2.1968. The petitioner was rightly fixed up in the pay scale of Rs.160-400 which was the corresponding pay scale of Rs.125-250 as per entitlement of the petitioner. The petitioner has no right, entitlement for the pay scale of Rs.200-450 at par with the pay scale of the Instructors of his category in the Industrial Training Institutes of Labour, Employment & Training Department from 1.2.1968. 5 7. The petitioner was appointed as Instructor (Electrician) in the pay scale of Rs.125-250 in the office of the Rural Artisan Training Centre, Dharampur ( Punjab). He joined on 27.2.1965 in the Industries Department of Punjab Government. The pay scale of Instructor (Electrician) in the department of Labour, Employment & Training, Himachal Pradesh was revised from Rs.160-330 to Rs.200-450. The petitioner was appointed in the lower pay scale of Rs.125-250 in the Industries department. The departments were different, scales were different, having different responsibility, the petitioner has no right for the revision of pay scale on the analogy of Instructors (Electrician) in the Industrial Training Institutes under the Labour, Employment & Training Department w.e.f. 1.2.1968. 8. Heard and perused the record. The case of the petitioner is that he is entitled to pay scale of Rs.200-450 from 1.2.1968 with further revision from time to time. According to him on 1.2.1968, Electrical Instructors were given the revised pay scale of Rs.200-450, but the petitioner was given the pay scale of Rs.125- 250. The stand of the respondents is that the petitioner was given the pay scale of Rs.125-250 when he was appointed in Punjab, he was allocated to Himachal Pradesh in the year 1966 and his scale was revised to Rs.160-400 which was the revised scale of Rs.125- 250. 9. The common case of the parties is that the petitioner was appointed on 27.2.1965 as Electrician Instructor in the pay scale of Rs.125-250. T he further case of the respondents is that the petitioner was appointed Electrician Instructor in the office of Rural Artisan Training Centre, Dharampur (Punjab). At the time of 6 reorganization of State of Punjab the services of the petitioner were allocated to the State of Himachal Pradesh in the year 1966 and petitioner came in the Industries Department of Himachal Pradesh in equal post like Rural Institute of Himachal Pradesh. The Rural Industrial Training Institutes (RITI) were having State level recognition and were run under State Council of Vocational Training Scheme. The other institutes known as Industrial Training Institutes (ITI) were under National Council for Vocational Training Scheme having of All India level recognition, affiliation. The specific case of the respondents is that Recruitment Promotion (rules), teaching norms, students admission qualifications, examination system, affiliation/certifying authorities, work and responsibilities of teachers(Instructors) of Rural Industrial Training Institutes, Industries Department and Industrial Training Institutes of Labour, employment and Training Department were altogether different. 10. The pay scale of the Instructors of Rural Industrial Training Institutes was Rs.125-250 whereas the Instructors of Industrial Training Institutes were having the pay scale of Rs.160- 400 before 1.2.1968. The pay scale of Rs.125-250 was revised to Rs.160-400 whereas pay scale of Rs.160-330 was revised to Rs.200-450 from 1.2.1968. Therefore, the The petitioner was not entitled to fixation of pay in the pay scale of Rs.200-450 which was the revised pay scale of Rs.160-400. The petitioner was not in the pay scale of Rs.160-400 when he was allocated to Himachal Pradesh, therefore, there was no question of his being given pay scale of Rs.200-450. 7 11. The petitioner made representation dated 3.7.1971 Annexure R-1, which according to respondents was considered and it was found that question of claim of the petitioner for revised pay scale of Rs.200-450 does not arise. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is entitled to equal pay vis-à-vis other employees performing same function. The case is not for equal pay for equal work but is a case for revision of pay scale on the basis of earlier pay scale. The petitioner was in the pay scale of Rs.125-250 and therefore, he was rightly given the revised pay scale of Rs.160- 400. It is not the case of the petitioner that the pay scale of Rs.160- 400 was not the revised pay scale of Rs.125-250. In view of reference of some juniors to petitioner in Annexures A-5 and A-6, it has been contended that petitioner is entitled to at least the pay scale of his juniors. In the petition the petitioner has not pleaded that he is entitled to fixation of his pay equal to pay scale of his juniors. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for grant of pay scale of Rs.200-450 w.e.f. 1.2.1968 and its revision from time to time. There is no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge. July 21, 2009 (sks)