1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 12502 of 2008. Date of Decision: 20th April, 2011. Dwarka Dass …..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P and others …..Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner: Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy.A.G with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy.A.G for respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral). According to Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner the matter is squarely covered by the decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 107/2009 titled as State of H.P & Ors Vs. Mohinder Singh, copy of which is taken on record. Having perused the records of the instant case, it is quite evident that the Court was dealing with similarly situated persons wherein following directions were issued: ” State in the education department is aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.3.2009 passed in CWP (T) No. 2903/2008. The simple issue pertains to the scale of pay as applicable to the writ petitioner. Writ petitioner was initially appointed on tenure basis in the year 1981. The standard form of tenure appointment is available at 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Annexure A-1. It is stated that the appointment is in the pay scale of Rs. 570-1080 with five increments for shashtris. The Recruitment & Promotion Rules were introduced to the department as per Annexure A-2, notification dated 23.3.1989. As per the said Rules, shastris. Language teachers who were in the scale of Rs. 570-1080 were put on revised scale of Rs. 1640-2925/-. The fixation is contained in the foot note which reads as follows: “These scales will be a measure personal to the present incumbents and in future Masters (TGT) be appointed as Language Master.” According to the government, the scale of Rs. 1640-2925/-, as per the amended Rules, will be applicable only to regular teachers and to that effect, a clarification has been issued by the government on 17.12.1991 It is stated in the said Annexure RA-1/Tm communication that teachers who did not possess B.Ed qualification would be given scale of Rs. 1500-2640. It is also clarified therein itself that “Shashtris/Language Teachers having B.Ed qualification shall be entitled to the pay scale in accordance with the Finance Department notification No. Fin © B(7)-6/88 dated 23.3.1989 (Annexure A-2). According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, despite such a clarification in the year 1991, department itself had clarified in 1992 as per Annexure A-3/A that Shashtris were entitled to the scale of Rs. 1640-2925/- whether they possess the B.Ed or not, in case they have been appointed prior to the introduction of the amendment on 23.3.1989. Despite the persuasive arguments made by learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General, we are unable to make out any difference in the order dated 23.3.1989, limiting its 3 operation only to teachers appointed on regular basis. There is no dispute that the petitioner and similarly situated teachers who were Shashtris have been appointed in the scale of Rs. 570-1080. It is that scale that was revised to Rs. 1640-2925, wherein it had been made clear that the revision is a personal measure available to the incumbents existed, as on that date and that future appointments should be limited to masters (TGT). Therefore, the original order having not made any difference between the teachers appointed on tenure basis or on regular basis and in the said order, relevant factor being only the scale of pay and since the benefit of revision of scale of pay having been extended and in a sense limited to the existing incumbents as on 23.3.1989, we are unable to be persuaded in terms of clarification Annexure RA-1/T dated 17.12.1991.” 2. Subsequently, the Government has also taken the decision in terms of order dated 6.9.2010, copy of which is also taken on record and it reads as under: ”I am directed to refer to your letter No. ENN-H(18)LC- (E) 164/08-KGR dated 8-7-2010 on the subject cited above and to say that the matter has been examined by the Law Department who have observed that:- “Examined in the Law Department this Department has gone through the judgment of Hon’ble High Court dated 30-3-2010 delivered in LPA Bi, 107/2009 case titled as State of H.P & others Vs. Mohinder Singh whereby the Hon’ble Court (T) No. 2903/2008 dated 23-3-2009 by observing that, “the judgment of the learned single judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The appeal is hence dismissed.” Thus, from the above, it is seen that there is concurrent findings of 4 two benches of the Hon’ble High Court, therefore, in the opinion of Law Department, the case in question does not deserve further agitation. This has the approval of Secretary (Law)” 3. In view of the aforesaid, the action of respondents in not granting the pay scale of `1640-2925 to the petitioner is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to pay scale of `1640-2925 instead of `1500- 2640 w.e.f 1-1-1994. Subsequent action be taken within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. Monetary benefits, due and admissible, if any, be also disbursed to the petitioner within the aforesaid period, failing which thereafter, petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum. 4. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. ( Sanjay Karol), Judge April 20, 2011 (Priti)