IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.: 8016 of 2008. Decided on: 26.5.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Shri Chet Ram Thakur and another. … Petitioners. Versus The State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioners. : Mr. H.K. Paul, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. With Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl.A.G. and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, A.A.G. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The petitioners were working as Bio Gas Supervisors in the respondent-Department. One of their colleagues Shri Tej Ram Kashyap filed Original Application No. 1189 of 1995 in the H.P. Administrative Tribunal, Shimla. The learned Tribunal vide judgment dated 23.6.1995 disposed of the petition with following observations: “The respondents are directed to consider one more channel of promotion to him or grant one higher pay scale if there is none at the moment.” In sequel to directions issued by the learned Tribunal on 23.6.1995, Shri Tej Ram Kashyap was granted the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 with effect from 23.6.1995. Similarly situate persons, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 31 in number, also filed another Original Application. No. 613 of 1998, titled Tek Singh and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh. The same was allowed by the learned Tribunal following the decision rendered in Tej Ram Kashyap’s case. These persons were also granted the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 with effect from 23.6.1995. The petitioners were left out by the respondents. The petitioners also belonged to the cadre of Bio Gas Supervisors. Shri Tej Ram Kashyap figured at serial number 23 of the tentative seniority list of Bio Gas Supervisors as it stood on 30.11.1995. The petitioners are at serial number 59 and 65 of the seniority list. The petitioners served a notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure upon the Secretary (Agriculture) on 31.7.1991 seeking the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 on the analogy of Shri Tej Ram Kashyap and others. Mr. H.K. Paul has strenuously argued that once the learned Tribunal had decided the case in favour of Shri Tej Ram Kashyap and others, it was incumbent upon the respondents to do the needful by granting the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 to the petitioners instead of dragging them to the Court. He then argued that the petitioners could not be discriminated against by not allowing them the scale of Rs. 1800-3200. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has argued that the relief granted to Shri Tej Ram Kashyap was personal to him and not in rem. I have heard the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 3 It is not in dispute that the petitioners were working as Bio Gas Supervisors in the respondent-Department. Shri Tej Ram Kashyap, who was at serial number 33 of the seniority list, had filed Original Application bearing No. 1189 of 1995, which was decided on 23.6.1995. The department after the directions issued by the learned Tribunal had decided to grant pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 to Shri Tej Ram Kashyap with effect from 23.6.1995. It is expected from the State to grant similar relief to the persons belonging to the same cadre. Shri Tek Singh and others, who were also not granted the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 approached the Tribunal by way of Original Application No. 613 of 1998. It was decided on 13.3.2000 and they were granted the pay scale at par with Shri Tej Ram Kashyap. The petitioners are similarly situated persons. They are also entitled to the same pay scale which has been granted to Shri Tej Ram Kashyap and others, as noticed above. It is the duty cast upon the State to reduce litigation. In case the petitioners being similarly situate persons had been granted the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 on the analogy of Shri Tej Ram Kashyap, the filing of this petition was avoidable. The petitioners in view of the judgment rendered by the learned Tribunal could not be discriminated against by the respondents. The ratio of the judgment of Shri Tej Ram Kashyap was either to provide promotional avenues to the category of Bio Gas Supervisors or to grant them higher pay scale. The Department had chosen to grant higher pay scale to Shri Tej Ram Kashyap and others. The ratio of the judgment of the learned Tribunal in Shri Tej Ram Kashyap’s case was in rem and not in personam. 4 Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.T. Veerappa and others versus State of Karnataka and others, (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 406 have held that the grant of revised pay scales to the employees who had earlier approached the High Court but denying the same benefits to the similarly situate persons by the University was unjustified, irrational, arbitrary and discriminatory. Their Lordships have held as under: The defence of the State Government that as the appellants were not the petitioners in the writ petition filed by 23 employees of the respondent University to whom the benefit of revised pay scales were granted by the Court, the appellants are estopped from raising their claim of revised pay scales in the year 1992-94, is wholly unjustified, patently irrational, arbitrary and discriminatory. As noticed in the earlier part of this judgment, revised pay scales were given to those 23 employees in the year 1991 when the contempt proceedings were initiated against the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar of the University of Mysore. The benefits having been given to 23 employees of the university in compliance with the decision dated 21.6.1989 recorded by the learned Single Judge in WPs Nos. 21487-506 of 1982, it was expected that without resorting to any of the methods the other employees identically placed, including the appellants, would have been given the same benefits, which would have avoided not only unnecessary litigation but also the movement of files and papers which only waste public time.” Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant 5 the petitioners the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 with effect from 23.6.1995 along with arrears with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum within a period of eight weeks. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. May 26, 2009. (cr)