IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.1704 of 2011 Date of Decision: September 22, 2011 Kundan Lal ..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Petitioner : Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. __________________________________________ Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner started working as Cook in the Police Department, headed by respondent No.2, on daily wages, in June, 1970. He was appointed as Cook in regular pay-scale w.e.f 1.1.1980. At the time of petitioner’s appointment in regular pay-scale, post of Cook was a Class-IV post. Cooks had filed some case for up-gradation of their post from Class-IV to Class-III and also for grant of a higher pay- scale. That matter was pending, when the petitioner was appointed in regular pay scale. It came to be decided in favour of Cooks and they were ordered to be treated as Class-III employees in the pay scale of `400-600 w.e.f. 1.1.1980. Their earlier pay scale was `300-400. This matter Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É was decided sometime in the year 1997. Consequently, a letter, dated 5.6.1998, raising the pay-scale of Cooks from `300-400 to `400-600 and upgrading the post of Cook from Class-IV to Class-III, w.e.f. 1.3.1980 was issued. 2. Before issuance of aforesaid letter dated 5.6.1998, petitioner developed some defect in his eyes, which resulted in permanent loss of vision to the extent of 52%, owing to which it became difficult for him to work as Cook. This happened some time in the year 1985. On his request, he was shifted from the post of Cook to that of a Frash. In the year 1985, pay-scale of the post of Cook was `300-400 and the pay-scale of the post of Frash was also the same. 3. When the pay-scale of the post of Frash was raised to `400-600 w.e.f. 1.3.1980, petitioner claimed that he be also placed in the pay-scale of `400-600. He having worked as Cook upto 16.5.1985, was placed in the raised pay-scale of Cook w.e.f. 1.3.1980 and on the day he was shifted to the post of Frash, his pay was `450. 4. From 17.5.1985, petitioner’s pay was reduced to `430/-, which was the maximum of the pay-scale of the post of Frash. He felt aggrieved by this action of respondent No.2 and filed an Original Application before the then State Administrative Tribunal, which came to be decided, vide judgment dated 14.9.2006, copy Annexure P-1. Learned Tribunal ordered that pay of the petitioner, which had risen É3É to `450, on account of accrual of annual increment in the higher pay scale of `400-600, was required to be protected, on his shifting to the post of Frash. Learned Tribunal made reference to the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and F.R. 22 B and 27 in its order, copy Annexure P-1. 5. Aforesaid order of the Tribunal, copy Annexure P-1, attained finality and the petitioner was given the benefit of that order, by protecting his pay at `450, which he was getting as on 16.5.1985, the date he was transferred to the post of Frash. 6. Notification, copy Annexure P-3, regarding revision of pay-scales, effective from 1.1.2006, was issued by the State of H.P. in the year 2009. Pay of the petitioner has been fixed in the revised pay-scale. He was drawing pay in the pre-revised scale of `2720-4260 @`6200, as on 31.12.2005. According to the revised structure of pay- scales, there are pay-bands and grade pay. To Frash and other Class-IV employees pay band PB-I applies. Petitioner’s emoluments in the pre-revised scale, as on 31.12.2005, having been worked out at `11540/-, per pay-fixation order Annexure P-4, which amount is higher than the maximum of PB-I, he was placed in the next higher pay-scale of `5910- 20200 and his pay was fixed at `12,940. This was inclusive of Grade Pay of `1400/. É4É 7. Petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid order. His contention is that he is entitled to Grade Pay of `1900. According to him, his pre-revised pay-scale was `3120-5160, revised Pay Band of which is `5910-20200+Grade Pay of `1900. So, he has filed the present petition seeking a direction to the respondents to pay him Grade Pay @ `1900 instead of `1400. 8. Respondents, in their reply, have stated that Grade Pay is granted not on the basis of revised pay-scale, but on the basis of pre-revised pay-scale and also not on the basis of pay-scale whether revised or unrevised, but on the basis of the post held, and since the petitioner is holding a Class-IV post of Frash, he is entitled to Grade Pay of the post of Frash which is `1400/-. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Assistant Advocate General and gone through the record. 10. Petitioner’s plea, that he was in the pre-revised pay-scale of `3120-5160 and was holding a Class-III post of Cook as on 31.12.2005, is not correct. As per pay fixation order, copy Annexure P-4, he was in the pay-scale of `2740- 4260, which is the pay-scale of Class-IV post, granted to the holders of Class-IV post, under ACP Scheme. Time scale of the post of Class-IV is `2520-4120 (pre-revised). 11. Learned counsel, representing the petitioner, submits that petitioner’s pay scale of `400-600 had been É5É ordered to be protected by the Tribunal, vide judgment dated 14.9.2006, copy Annexure P-1. 12. As already noticed while narrating the facts, what was ordered to be protected by the Tribunal, was pay, which the petitioner was drawing as Cook as on 16.5.1985, the date of his being transferred to the post of Frash and not the higher pay-scale of the post of Cook, which post had been upgraded to Class-III from Class-IV post, pursuant to a case filed by the Cooks, which came to be decided in their favour. 13. Petitioner having been transferred to the post of Frash, which was a Class-IV post and the pay-scale of which was `300-400 at the relevant time, he cannot be heard to say that he was in the pay-scale of `3120-5160, which was the time scale of Class-III post as on 31.12.2005. Also, no material has been placed on record by the petitioner, in support of his claim. On the contrary, petitioner himself has placed reliance upon Annexure P-4, pay fixation order, which shows that he was in the pay-scale of Class-IV post and the pay-scale was `2720-4260 at the time when pay revision, effective from 1.1.2006, took place. Since the petitioner was holding a Class-IV post on that date, he is entitled to Grade Pay of a Class-IV post, which is `1400 and not that of Class-III post. Consequently, petition is dismissed. September 22, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.