IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1133 of 2010 Decided on: 10.10.2011 Kameshwar Gautam …Petitioner. Versus H.P. Horticultural Product & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ajeet Saklani, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No. 2 and 3. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) The short question which arises in this petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of higher start of ` 1920/- in the pay scale of ` 1800-3200 on revision of the pay scales? 2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was working as Senior Scale Stenographer in the HPMC in the year 1983. He was working in the scale of ` 800-1400, which after revision of pay scales on 01.01.1986 was revised to ` 1800-3200. 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. -: 2 :- The salary of the petitioner was fixed in this pay scale of ` 1800-3200 at ` 1840/- w.e.f. 01.09.1986 on 7th October, 1989. 3. The case of the petitioner is that admittedly the HPMC is following the Secretariat pattern of pay scales and in the Secretariat, vide Annexure P-7, dated 4th November, 1992, initial start of ` 1920/- was given to the Senior Assistants and Senior Scale Stenographers of Secretariat Offices, who were in the pre- revised scale of ` 800-1400 on 31.12.1985. It is on this basis that the petitioner claims this pay scale. 4. The earlier petition filed by the petitioner was directed to be treated as a representation to the State of Himachal Pradesh and the State was directed to take a decision thereon. Thereafter, the Principal Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh took a decision on 24.07.2009 and in this decision, it was stated that this matter had been specifically considered by the Service Committee, which included the Managing Director of HPMC and in this meeting held on 09.06.1994, a specific decision was taken that initial start of ` 1920/- was not justified in the case of employees of the HPMC. 5. No doubt, the case of the petitioner has been recommended from time to time by the HPMC authorities. The Executive Director of the HPMC has also recommended the case, but the officers who have recommended the case of the petitioner have not taken into consideration the fact that in the meeting of the Service Committee held on 09.06.1994, when the Managing Director of the HPMC himself was present, a specific decision was -: 3 :- taken that the initial start of ` 1920/- was not to be given to the Senior Assistants and Senior Scale Stenographers in the said organization. 6. The HPMC is an organization different from the Secretariat and once the Service Committee takes a specific decision not to give the initial start despite the fact that as normal practice, the scales of the Secretariat are being followed, this Court cannot sit in judgment over the orders of the Service Committee. Even if the case of the petitioner is taken at best, HPMC is at best following the pattern of pay scales, which are provided for in the H.P. Secretariat. This, however, does not mean that individual cases of initial start have to be followed mutatis mutandis. 7. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge October 10, 2011 (rajni)