IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 15043 of 2008 with CWP (T) No. 14167 of 2008. Decided on: 15.10.2011. ___________________________________________________________ 1. CWP (T) No. 15043 of 2008: Shri Roshan Lal … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. 2. CWP (T) No. 14167 of 2008: Himachal Govt. Teachers’ Union … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner (s) : Mr. R.K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. AG for respondents No. 1 & 2 in CWP (T) No. 15043 of 2008 and for respondents No. 1 to 3 in CWP (T) No. 14167 of 2008. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, ASGI for respondent No.3 in CWP (T) No. 15043 of 2008. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). Both these petitions being interconnected are taken up together for disposal. 2. On 11.7.2011, the following common order was passed by this Court in these matters:- “Heard the learned counsel/learned DAG for the parties at some length. The learned Deputy Advocate General shall obtain clear and unambiguous instructions viz-a-viz letter dated 10.03.1993, Annexure A-2, read with letters dated 02.01.1995, Annexure A-3, 18.08.1995, Annexure A3-I, 01.12.1999, Annexure A-4, 17.07.2000, Annexure A-5 and letter dated 7.3.1991, Annexure R-1, viz-a-viz letter dated 5.9.2006, (Endst. Dated 21.9.2006), Annexure A-6 and letter dated 06.04.1990, Annexure R-2, with regard to the impact of stepping up of pay of senior Government servants and the consequent effect which again would result in 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 an anomalous situation where the juniors would draw more pay as compared to the seniors. Further instructions with regard to bar on recovery of the benefit already granted, as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana and others, 1995 Supp. (1) Supreme Court Cases 18 and Sayed Abdul Qadir vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 475, shall also be obtained. An affidavit incorporating the instructions, as above, shall be filed within four weeks. List after four weeks.” 3. In compliance of the above order dated 11.7.2011, the requisite affidavit stands filed by respondent No.2, para 7 whereof is as under:- “7. That respondent No.2 vide its letter dated 17.07.2000 has clarified that “FD vide letter No. Fin (PR) B(7)-51/98, dated 01.12.99 clarified that the enhancement in the basic pay on account of annual increment and as a result of fixation of pay in the revised pay scales will not mean enhancement in the basic pay for this purpose. The revision of master scale notified by the Finance Department vide Fin (C) B (7)-6/88, dated 17.02.1993 is also revision of pay scales. Hence step up granted/sanctioned may not be treated as hindrance for counting of service period for benefit of ACPS”. The clarification given by respondent No.2 is not in consonance with the clarification issued by the Finance Department. Since the Finance Department is the final authority for interpretation/clarification of rules, hence, in view of clarification issued by the Finance Department vide its letter No. Fin (PR) B (7) 51/98-II, dated 5th September, 2006, the letter bearing No., Shiksha (5)- 1/92-Misc (B&A), dated 17.07.2000 issued by respondent No.2 has been withdrawn vide letter No. EDN-H (III)Ele. CWP No. (T) 14167/2008-BLS, dated 09th September, 2011. It has been specifically mentioned in this letter that no recovery will be affected from those C&V teachers who have been given financial benefit. They pay will be fixed accordingly. So far the point regarding becoming the situation anomalous in view of clarification given in Annexure R-2 is concerned, there is a provision to give step up to senior employee time and again as and when he will start drawing less pay than his junior as per Government letter No. Fin (PR) B (7)-51/98, dated 22nd October, 2001.” 4. Admittedly, in view of the above reply, the grievance of the petitioner-Association in CWP (T) No. 14167 of 2008, Himachal Govt. Teachers’ Union versus State of H.P. and others stands fully redressed. CWP (T) No. 14167 of 2008 is accordingly disposed of. 3 5. In view of recitals in para 7 of the above supplementary affidavit filed by respondent No.2, the grievance raised by the petitioner in CWP (T) No. 15043 of 2008, Shri Roshan Lal versus State of H.P. and others also stands fully redressed. However, since out of the consequent benefits admissible to him, a sum of Rs. 40,304/- has been withheld vide office order dated 25.4.2007, Annexure A-2, text whereof is as under, the same shall be payable to him along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner to the respondents/competent authority, failing which enhanced interest at the rate of 9% per annum shall be payable:- “TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Sh. Roshan Lal Sharma Retired from this School on 28.2.2007 from the post of Language Teacher vide A.G., H.P., Shimla No. P-5/77671/R- 182/2006-07/7066/10075-76 dated 04.02.2007 a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- was sanctioned as D.C.R.G. and vide DDE (Elementary Education) Bilaspur letter No. EDN-BLS (B&A) (18)4/2004/2337-432 dated 28.2.2007 a sum of Rs. 40,304/- is withheld and Rs. 3,09,696/- is paid to the above named teacher. Sd/- Dated: 25.4.2007. Principal, Place: Kothipura. GSSS Kothipura, Distt. Bilaspur, H.P.” 6. The petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. October 15, 2011. (cr)