IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 2973 of 2008 (OA No.100/1996) Date of Decision : February 25, 2009 B. D. Kashyap …Applicant-petitioner Versus: H. P. Financial Corpn. …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant-petitioner: Mr. O. P. Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. A. K. Sharma, Advocate Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Heard further. The petitioner was employed as Senior Manager with the respondent-Corporation w.e.f. 15.7.1992 and was confirmed as such on 15.7.1993. He was carrying a pay scale of Rs.3000- 5300. Vide office order dated 4.1.1994, the post of Senior Manager was re-designated as Secretary in the same pay-scale with immediate effect. The office order is reproduced as under:- “In pursuance of the recommendations of Service Committee meeting held on 11.10.1991, approved by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 18.3.1992, Shri B. D. Kashyap, Senior Manager, is hereby re-designated as Secretary in his own pay-scale of Rs.3000-100-4000- 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 125-5000-150-5300 with immediate effect. However, for future promotion his post of Secretary is equate with the Senior Manager.” (Emphasis supplied) He was also required to look after the working of the Accounts Section and attend to all matters connected with the Board Meetings of the respondent-Corporation. The pay-scales and designations of the managerial staff of the respondent-Corporation were revised in terms of Minutes of Meeting dated 8.8.1994 and the posts of Senior Managers in the pay-scale of Rs.3000-5300 were re-designated as the post of Assistant General Manager in the pay-scale of Rs.3700-5000. With regard to the post of Secretary, nothing was provided for, but however, the pay-scale of the Deputy General Managers who were in the pay-scale of Rs.3000-5300, was revised to Rs.4125- 6100. Prior to the said revision and re-designation, the posts of the Deputy General Manager and Secretary were to be at par in the same pay-scale of Rs.1775-2300. In order of hierarchy, Senior Manager could be promoted as Deputy General Manager/ Secretary on the basis of merit-cum-seniority and the Deputy General Manager/Secretary could be promoted as General Manager. Three years service in the feeder post was necessary to make an employee eligible for promotion to the next higher grade. 3 Appointment of Shri B. D. Kashyap as Secretary was purely as stop-gap arrangement in place of Shri K. K. Joshi who was on deputation. However, with the retirement of Shri K. K. Joshi and the post of Secretary having fallen vacant, the post of the petitioner had to be re-designated as Senior Manager. The petitioner, however, made a representation to the Board seeking parity with the Deputy General Manager in the pay scale of Rs.4125-5500. His representation and appeal were rejected in terms of letters dated 27.6.1995 & 1.1.1996 (Annexure A-9 & Annexure A-13 respectively) and it was categorically brought to his notice that since he was ineligible to have been promoted as Secretary, hence, mere re-designation of his post of Senior Manager as Secretary without any promotional benefits would be of no consequence and, as such, he was not entitled to the pay-scale of the Deputy General Manager. The writ petition was filed in the year 1996 and during the pendency, with the subsequent revision of pay-scale financial benefits have been accorded to the petitioner as per his eligibility and entitlement. The same is evident from the reply dated 28.8.2002 filed by the respondent Corporation. With effect from 1.4.1993, the respondent- Corporation introduced a policy of revising the pay-scale after a span of five years of service at each level. Benefits in terms of the said policy have also been given to the petitioner. The petitioner has been granted benefits of the time scale promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager w.e.f. 19.10.2001. He 4 has also been given the benefits of notional promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager w.e.f. 1.8.1997. Simply because the petitioner’s post was re-designated as Secretary that by itself would not entitle him to the pay-scale of the Secretary particularly when it was specifically mentioned in the order that for all future promotions his post of Secretary is equated with that of the Senior Manager. Nothing in law entitles the petitioner for the very same scale of the Deputy General Manager. Through Annexure A-5 (page 30 of the Paper Book), it is evident that the Board had taken a decision that the post of Secretary be up-graded as General Manager which would be co- terminus with the present incumbent and on his vacating the post the status quo ante would prevail. This perhaps was done to accommodate an officer but be that as it may be the fact of the matter is that the petitioner has got no right in law to have the same pay scale. Therefore, in my view, with the subsequent development which has taken place, nothing survives in the present writ petition and no further necessary orders are required to be passed. With regard to the benefits of the pay-scale of General Managers, Mr. A. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent has brought to my notice that the Association of which the petitioner is a member has filed a petition being OA No.1334 of 2007 titled as Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation Officers Association vs. H.P.F.C. The position is not disputed at the bar but, however, it is argued that the petition would still be maintainable. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner needs to be rejected for the reason that the petitioner is a member of the Association and the Association is pursuing the remedies with regard to the subsequent cause of action; the petitioner has not 5 amended the writ petition so as to seek consequential relief of benefits to the post of General Manager. As such, the consideration of such oral prayer is beyond the scope of the present writ petition. For the aforesaid reasons, the present petition is disposed of, so also the pending application. It is clarified that the issues which are subject-matter of OA No.1334/2007 have not been dealt with in the present petition. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. February 25, 2009. (rana)