IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 533 of 2008 Decided on : 15.12.2010. Prem Chand …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. ..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. J.R.Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, J (Oral) The petitioner has prayed a direction to the respondents to grant step up increments to petitioner after rendering 8, 16, 24 and 32 years of service along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the due date till the date of actual payment. 2. The further case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as JBT on 11.9.1967. He was given promotions and ultimately he retired as Block Primary Education Officer, Kandaghat on 30.11.2006 after rendering more than 39 years of service. The petitioner was entitled for yearly increments and step up increments which were to be paid to the petitioner from time to time. He has not been given step up increments after 8, 16, 24 and 32 years. The due and admissible GPF 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 has also not been paid to the petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the petition. 3. The respondents No.1 to 3 have contested the petition by filing reply and have stated that the petitioner had joined as JBT teacher on 11.9.1967 on temporary basis. He was appointed on regular basis on 7.8.1968 and he joined on 2.9.1968. On 1.1.1978 the pay of the petitioner was fixed at ` 525/- in the revised pay scale of ` 480 - 880/- and he was fixed at ` 1410/- in the revised pay scale of ` 1200 - 2100/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and on the same date 1st prop step up was awarded to the petitioner and he was fixed at ` 1440/-. After the completion of 18 years of service, 2nd prop step up was given to the petitioner in the pay scale of ` 1640 – 2925/- on 2.9.1986 and his pay was fixed at ` 1640/- with date of next increment on 1.9.1987. The petitioner had been granted the benefit of 24 years ACP on 1.1.1996 and he was fixed at ` 6400/- with next date of increment on 1.9.1996. The petitioner was awarded the benefit of 32 years ACP on 2.9.2000 and his pay was fixed at ` 7660/- and was promoted as Centre Head Teacher on 19.6.2001 and his pay was fixed accordingly. The petitioner was promoted as Block Primary Education Officer on 6.7.2006 and his pay was fixed under FR-22. The petitioner retired on 30.11.2006 after getting all the benefits of 8, 18, 24 and 32 years of service from the date of his regular appointment on 2.9.1968. An amount of ` 12,41,353/- on account of GPF has already been paid to the petitioner on 21.7.2007. The respondents have prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The respondents No.1 to 3 in their reply have specifically stated that all the benefits after 8, 18, 24 and 32 years of service have been given to the 3 petitioner and GPF amount of ` 12,41,353/- has already been released to the petitioner. In the petition the petitioner has stated that he has not been given the benefit of 8, 16, 24 and 32 years of service. The respondents in the reply have taken the stand that the petitioner has been given step up increments after 8, 18, 24 and 32 years of service. 5. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder and has not disputed the stand of the respondents regarding the benefit given by respondents to the petitioner after 8,18, 24 and 32 years of service nor the petitioner has disputed that he has not been paid ` 12,41,353/- on account of GPF. No doubt, the petitioner has claimed 2nd step up increment after 16 years and the respondents have given the 2nd step up increment to the petitioner after 18 years, but it has not been pointed out how 2nd step up increment given by the respondents after 18 years of service is wrong. There are no pleadings to this effect in the petition and as noticed above no rejoinder has been filed. At the time of hearing also nothing has been pointed on what basis the petitioner is entitled to 2nd step up increment after 16 years of service. There is no merit in the petition, accordingly the same is dismissed. ( Kuldip Singh ) December 15, 2010 Judge. (GR)