IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.72 of 2001 Date of decision 7.4.2008 Jai Dev Petitioner Vs. Union of India and anr. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Ms RanjanaParmar,Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Ravinder Thakur, Central Government Counsel. Per Rajiv Sharma,J. This petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 11.7.2000 in O.A.No.138/HP/98. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the erstwhile N.W. Post Circle was trifurcated into three different Circles I.e. Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. The Chief Post Master General for each Circle was provided with the services of a Stenographer designated as Senior P.A. in the scale of Rs.2000-3200. One Sh. R.L.Narotra being senior most Grade II Stenographer at Shimla was appointed on officiating basis and continued to officiate in Grade-I upto 8.10.1991. He was also released the scale of Rs.2000-3200. The petitioner was given posting in place of Sh. R.L.Narotra and he was attached with respondent No.2 with effect from 4.11.1991. He made several representations for the grant of scale of Rs.2000-3200. The post of Senior P.A. in H.P. Circle was sanctioned with effect from 31.3.1994. 1 Whether reporter of local papers is allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 The petitioner was appointed for a period of three months in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3200 with effect from 15.4.1994. This period was further extended upto 14.10.1994 and thereafter approval was once again given for six months. He was promoted as Senior P.A. on regular basis with effect from 26.2.1996. The representation made by him was rejected for the release of pay scale of Rs.2000-3200 except for a period from 21.9.1995 to 25.2.1996 on the ground that he did not fulfill the eligibility condition for grant of ad hoc promotion. The petitioner approached the learned Central administrative Tribunal for redressal of his grievance. The O.A. was partly allowed by the learned Tribunal on 11.7.2000. Ms. Ranjana Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner had strenuously argued that her client has been discriminated against vis-à-vis one Sh..R.L.Narotra who was appointed on officiating basis and continued to officiate in grade-I upto 8.10.1991 and was also allowed the scale of Rs.2000-3200 but the same has been denied to her client. She then contended that the petitioner has to be treated at par with Mr.R.L.Narotra for all intents and purposes and he is to be held entitled to the pay scale of Rs.2000-3200 for a period i.e. 6.11.1991 to 14.4.1994. Mr.Ravinder Thakur learned Central Counsel appearing for the respondents had supported the order dated 11.7.2000. His further contention is that the petitioner was neither eligible nor there was any sanctioned post. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. What emerges from the facts as narrated here in above is that Sh. R.L.Narotra being senior most Grade –II Stenographer was appointed on officiating basis in grade-I upto 8.10.1991. He was granted pay scale of Rs.2000-3200. He was transferred to Delhi on regular promotion. The petitioner was given posting in place of Mr.Narotra vide letter dated 3 4.11.1991. The post of Senior P.A. in H.P. Circle was sanctioned with effect from 31.3.1994. The petitioner was promoted on ad hoc basis in the scale of Rs.2000-3200 with effect from 15.4.1994 which period was extended from time to time as is evident from the pleadings of the parties. He was regularly promoted with effect from 26.2.1996. Mr.R.L.Narotra had also been appointed on officiating basis as Stenographer Grade-I without a sanctioned post. He has been paid the scale of Rs.2000-3200 till he discharged his duties on officiating basis in Grade-I upto 8.10.1991. The petitioner had been given posting immediately after the transfer of Mr.Natrotra. If the pay scale of Rs.2000-3200 has been granted to Mr.Narotra for discharging the duties in Grade-1 there is no reason why the petitioner should have been discriminated against by denying him the same scale. Mr.Narotra had also worked against the non existent post but has been paid the pay scale of Rs.2000-3200 which fact has not been specifically denied by the respondents in their reply. The rigours of instructions dated 30.3.1988 were to be applied uniformally to the petitioner and Sh. R.L.Narotra. The petitioner was also promoted on ad hoc basis with effect from 6.6.1994 till his regularization on 26.2.1996. It has also come in the recommendations made by the Chief Postmaster General that the petitioner was discharging the same duties with same responsibilities which were being performed by Sh. R.L.Narotra. It is thus evident that the petitioner was initially attached with the Chief Postmaster General and thereafter promoted on ad hoc basis and was regularly promoted on 26.2.1996 Sh. R.L.Narotra has been paid pay scale of Rs.2000-3200 when he was working as Senior P.A. to Chief Postmaster General, there is no reason why the petitioner should be deprived of the same. Consequently the writ petition is allowed. The order of the learned Tribunal dated 11.7.2000 whereby the petitioner has not been held entitled to the pay scale of Rs.2000-3200 with effect from 6.11.1991 to 14.4.1994 4 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to the pay scale of Rs.2000-3200 with effect from 6.11.1991 to 14.4.1994. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to release the pay scale of Rs.2000-3200 to the petitioner with effect from 6.11.1991 to 14.4.1994 with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. within a period of 8 weeks. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ),J. April 7, 2008 ( Rajiv Sharma ), J (g)