IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 6037 of 2008. Decided on: 30.11.2010. __________________________________________________ H.P. Rajkiya Prathmik Anubandh Adhyapak Sangh. ... Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy.A.G. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. (Oral). The petitioner-Union is a representative body of Teachers appointed on contractual basis against the posts of J.B.T. in the pay scale of Rs. 1200 (fixed) plus allowances as admissible under the rules from time to time subject to the condition that they shall not be entitled for any increments. Annexure A-2 is the list of members of the Union. They were appointed on different dates mentioned against each during the years 1996 to 1999. Their grievance precisely is that consequent upon revision of pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1996, they were not granted the revised pay scale of Rs. 4550- 7220, albeit the recommendation to this effect made by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 vide letter dated nil of June, 1998, Annexure A-6, relevant para whereof is extracted below:- 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 “These contract teachers were appointed as Rs. 1200/- fixed plus allowances in the pre- revised pay scales of JBT of Rs. 1200-2100. Now as the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2100 has been revised to Rs. 4020-6200 is required to be allowed to these teachers w.e.f. 1.1.96 or the date from when they have been appointed as the case may be. Because the budget for the sanctioned JBT teachers has already been proposed in the budget estimate, there appears hardly any need for additional demand in the budget. However, in case 3940 contract teachers are allowed revised pay scale of Rs. 4020-6200, there will be as expenditure of Rs. 4,40,000 p.m. to be incurred in making the payment to these teachers in the revised pay scales approximately which will be borne in the following head of account:- 220 General Education. 01 Elementary Education. 101 Govt. Primary Schools. 01 Exp.on Govt.Primary Schools. Plan/Non Plan. It may also be made clear whether these contract teachers will be paid revised pay scale of Rs. 4020-6200 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 or from the date of decision taken in the matter.” 2. On the above averments, the petition has been filed on the following prayers:- (7 (a). Quash the impugned action of the respondents whereby they are not allowing the pay scale of Rs. 4550/- plus other allowances to the applicants and the interested members as per Annexure A-2, in the revised scale of Rs. 4550-7220 on the principle of equal pay for 3 equal work, being arbitrary, mala fide and illegal. (b). Direct the respondents to pay at least the minimum of the scale in the revised pay scale for the same post held by the regular counterparts, i.e. (JBT Teachers), to the interested applicants as per list Annexure A-2 w.e.f. date of their respective initial appointments alongwith arrears and interest @ 18% thereon and all other consequential benefits. (c). Direct the respondents to pay the salary for the period of vacations to the applicants and also pay salary for six days casual leave. (d). Direct the respondents to pay Medical Allowance to the applicants w.e.f. 1.1.1996 alongwith interest @ 18% thereon till the payment of the same.” 3. In the reply, following stand has been taken by the respondents vide para 3:- “3. That in reply to this para it is submitted that the applicants were appointed on contract basis in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2100 the same scale as was being given to the regular JBT teacher appointed as per R & P Rules prior to 1.1.96. Before appointing the applicant on contract basis they entered into an agreement with the respondent-State and the conditions as laid down in the contract agreement were accepted as correct by them. If the contract appointment as offered to the applicants were not acceptable to them they were free to refuse to accept the same. As per the condition of the agreement the applicants were appointed for a specific period as per the 4 conditions of the agreement, however, the contract of the agreement were renewed for further period by the respondent-State, but now the Govt. has decided that the services of the contract teacher appointed by the respondent- State will be regularized after the completion of 8 years services by providing special JBT services and they will be entitled for the regular pay scale of JBT from the State when a special JBT certificate is given to them. Therefore, the present original application filed by the applicants is not maintainable in which the applicant have stated that their post is being filled up by posting of Vidya Upasak.” 4. In so far as the claim for salary for the period of vacations is concerned, the matter is no more res integra in view of a Division Bench judgment dated 5.8.2008 of this Court in CWP No. 415 of 2000 and the batch matters, titled Baldev Singh & others versus State of H.P. & others etc. etc., which was challenged by the State in the Hon’ble Supreme court, but admittedly without success, consequent upon which it is stated that the State Government has taken a decision to pay salary to the contractual employees for the period of vacations. It being so, if on facts, members of the petitioner-Union are similarly situate, they shall also be extended the same benefit. 5. Office order dated 31.3.1998, Annexure A-3 is the appointment letter of one of the members of the petitioner-Union. However, admittedly the terms and conditions mentioned therein govern each and every 5 member of the Union. It is more than clear on perusal of office order, Annexure A-3 that the members of the petitioner-Union were appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 1200 (fixed) plus allowances as admissible under the rules from time to time subject to the rider that they were not entitled for any increments. Thus, as a natural corollary as also on the basis of specific mention in office order, Annexure A-3 the appointees would be entitled for the said pay scale plus allowances “as admissible under the rules from time to time”. Meaning thereby that though members of the petitioner- Union were initially appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 1200- 2100 and were fixed at the lowest level of the pay scale, i.e. Rs. 1200, they were entitled for grant of the revised pay scales as applicable from time to time albeit the fact that they were to be fixed at the lowest level of the revised pay scales as admissible from time to time. Once the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2100 was initially revised to Rs. 4020-6200 and finally to Rs. 4550-7220, members of the petitioner-Union were entitled to be fixed at the lowest level of the finally revised pay scale, i.e. at Rs. 4550 plus allowances admissible from time to time. However, since it was not done and there is no reasonable and plausible explanation coming forth for the same, the members of the petitioner- Union are entitled for the grant of relief prayed for and more so when admittedly similarly situate employees of the State Government appointed on contract basis have already been granted this benefit. 6 6. In view of the above, the petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to grant to the members of the petitioner-Union the revised pay scale of Rs. 4550- 7220 by fixing them at the lowest level, i.e. at Rs. 4550 plus allowances as admissible from time to time along with consequential benefits within six months from today, failing which interest at the rate of 9% shall also be payable. Needless to say that salary for the period of vacations shall also be payable to the members of the petitioner-Union in the light of this judgment within the same time as above. 7. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. November 30, 2010. (cr)