IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 8928 of 2008. Date of Decision : December 21, 2010 Tribhuvan Raj Singh and others Petitioners Versus State of H.P through Secretary and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners : Mr. K.S. Banyal, Advocate, for the petitioners. For the respondents : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :- i) “ That the impugned order Annexure P-2 dated 21.11.2001 may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the salary of the applicants in the Senior scale of Rs.10,000/--15,200/-.” 2. Annexure P-2 is the order in terms of which the petitioners pay has been fixed. In fact, petitioners are seeking benefit of stepping up of their pay which was initially granted to them. 3. In the reply respondents have averred as under :- “ That the present original application filed by the applicant is not maintainable because, the respondents have Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 rightly fixed the pay of the applicants, as the benefit of stepping up has wrongly been given to them for which they were not at all entitled. Because the anomaly in the pay scale of the applicants as well as Sh. Sudama Ram has come due to the revision of pay scale, therefore, the same cannot be removed by stepping up. As the applicants were appointed as Lecturer College Cadre on 28.12.1995 and 30.12.1995 respectively meaning thereby the applicants have joined their duties in the Department prior to the revision of pay scales which have been revised w.e.f. 01.01.96 and Sh.Sudama Ram has joined his duties in the Department on 22.01.1996 i.e. after the revision; of pay scale. And according to the instructions of the Government, the incumbents who joined their duties prior to the revision of pay scales i.e. 01.01.1996 and were having the qualification of M. Phil were entitled for one advance increment, the copy of the Notification/instructions of the Govt. showing this fact is annexed and the same is marked as Annexure R-I. Whereas the incumbents who have joined their duties as Lecturer College Cadre after 01.01.1996, were entitled for two advance increments, the copy of the notification/instructions of the Govt. showing this fact is also annexed and the same is marked as Annexure R-2. So in view of these facts the applicants were entitled only for one advance increment, appointed prior to 01.01.1996 i.e. Revision of Pay scales, whereas Sh. Sudama Ram was entitled for two advance increments appointed after the revision of the pay scales cannot be removed. Therefore, the present original application deserves dismissal.” 4. In the present petition, notification issued by the State has not been assailed. Undisputedly, petitioners do not fulfill the criteria laid down in the notification entitling the employees for revision of their 3 Pay scale. Consequently, it cannot be said that any legally enforceable right of the petitioners stand violated. 5. Present petition, being devoid of any merit is dismissed (Sanjay Karol), Judge December 21, 2010 CS