IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 10136 of 2008 Date of Decision : March 28, 2011 Dinesh Kumar Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr.Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. Advocate General for the respondents-State. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(I) That the respondents may kindly be directed to release consolidated revised salary of Rs. 5000/- p.m. w.e.f. 1st Jan, 2001 to the applicant in accordance with office order dated 26th April, 01 at par with his counter- part with its consequential benefits accordingly. (II) That the respondents may also kindly be directed to release the arrear of revised consolidated salary with interest.” Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. It is not in dispute that petitioner and one Sh. Kamal Kishor were engaged as Maintenance Mechanic on contract basis at the Industrial Training Institute. From the office order dated 20.10.1998, as shown in the Court today, petitioner was appointed at the Institute at Mandi and Sh. Kamal Kishor was appointed in the Institute at Shahpur. Importantly wages for both these persons were fixed at a consolidated amount of `2500/- per month. Both these appointments were made on the basis of an interview held on the same day and for similar post. With the passage of time their remuneration was refixed and in terms of office order dated 23.1.2001 (Annexure A-1) pay of a Maintenance Mechanic existing at `2787/- was revised to `3120/-. However subsequently in terms of office order dated 26.4.2001 (Annexure A-2) salary was bifurcated and refixed as under:- Sr. No. Designation/ Name of post with scale Existing pay (Fixed) PM Refixed pay (Fixed) PM Remarks. 1. Maintenance Mechanic (Rs. 3120-5160) Rs. 2787/- Rs. 3120/- 2. Maintenance Mechanic (Rs. 5000-8100) Rs. 2787/- Rs. 5000/- 3. It is the petitioner’s grievance that even though he and Sh. Kamal Kishor were appointed on the same terms and conditions, respondents have accorded benefit of higher pay scale in terms of office order (Annexure A-2) to Sh. Kamal Kishor. 4. In the reply respondents have tried to explain that the petitioner was appointed against the post sanctioned in the pay 3 scale of `950-1800 and the other persons including Sh. Kamal Kishor were appointed on the post sanctioned in the higher pay scale of `1500-2640 which were having different duties and responsibilities. Now except for this bald assertion there is nothing on record to substantiate this fact. What other and different duties were or are being performed by Sh. Kamal Kishor and what additional responsibilities he is discharging is not discernible from the record. Further there is nothing on record to substantiate the fact that Sh. Kamal Kishor was actually appointed on the post which was sanctioned with the higher pay scale. In fact office order dated 20.10.1998, pertaining to the appointment of Sh. Dinesh Kumar and Sh. Kamal Kishor belies this stand. Assuming posts with higher pay scale were sanctioned and created later on, respondents ought to have also considered the petitioner’s case for entitlement to the higher pay scale. This is for the reason that order of appointment pertaining to Sh. Dinesh Kumar (petitioner) was immediately prior to the order issued in favour of Sh. Kamal Kishor even though both orders are of the same date. This leads to the conclusion that seniority of the petitioner was higher than Sh. Kamal Kishor. 5. Having accorded the benefits of Annexure A-2 of higher pay scale to Sh. Kamal Kishor, respondents have undoubtedly infringed upon the petitioner’s right of equality in service. Petitioner cannot be allowed to discriminate without justifiable reasons. Consequently petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to accord benefit of higher pay scale in terms of Annexure A-2 to the petitioner within a 4 period of four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment. It is clarified that all amounts, due and admissible to the petitioner, be also released within the aforesaid period, failing which thereafter, petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. March 28, 2011 (PK)