IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Writ Petition (T) No. 2642 of 2008. Reserved on: 26.12.2008. Decided on: 09.01.2009. __________________________________________________ Shri C.M. Bhandari … Petitioner. Versus Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry and another … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer (Electrical) in the respondent-University on 30.6.1978. He was promoted as Sub Divisional Officer (Electrical) on 6.9.1990. The respondent-University has taken a decision vide office order dated 10.2.1981 to sanction five posts in accordance with the approved yard stick by the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 H.P. State Electricity Board. The text of office order dated 10.2.1981 reads thus: “The following posts (on electrical side) are hereby sanctioned on work-charged basis for the year 1981-82, i.e. 1.3.81 to 28.2.82 for the Construction Division, HP Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Oachghat, Solan (HP). The posts have been sanctioned in accordance with the approved yards sticks (by the HPSEB) and the provision in the sanctioned estimates. The posts will be filled in by the competent authority after following proper procedure of recruitment/promotions. Sr.No. Designation of post No. of posts Scale sanctioned. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Sub Station Attendant 4 Nos. 400-660 2. Lineman/Electrician 2 Nos. 400-660 3. Asstt. Lineman/Asstt.Elect.4 Nos. 400-660 4. Helper/Trade Mate 3 Nos. 300-430 5. Meter Reader, Meter 1 No. 400-600 Ledger Clerk.” The case set up by the petitioner is that he is entitled to the pay scale of the Assistant Engineer (Electrical) w.e.f. 30.6.1978 as was being paid to the Assistant Engineer of the H.P. State Electricity Board. The stand of the respondent-University is that the pay scales of its employees are regulated by statute 5.6.(i). Its further case is that the University is an 3 academic institution and its working and functioning cannot be compared with the commercial organization, like H.P. State Electricity Board. Mr. Dilip Sharma has strenuously argued that his client is discharging the same and similar duties which are being discharged by his counter-parts in H.P. State Electricity Board. According to him, his client is entitled to the same pay scale which is payable to the Assistant Engineer in H.P. State Electricity Board. Mr. Onkar Jairath has argued that the petitioner is entitled to the pay scale which is being paid to his counter-parts in H.P. Public Works Department, as per statute 5.6.(i). I have heard the parties and have perused the record carefully. A bare perusal of office order dated 10.2.1981, reproduced hereinabove, shows that only five posts were sanctioned in accordance with approved yard stick by the H.P. State Electricity Board. The mere fact that the posts had been created on approved yard stick by the H.P. State Electricity Board does not suggest in any manner that the persons appointed against these posts shall be entitled to the pay scales payable to their counter-parts in 4 H.P. State Electricity Board. The University is a separate entity. The pay scales to the employees of the University are paid as per statute 5.6.(i). It is evident from the bare reading of statute 5.6.(i) as amended (Annexure P-3), that the conditions and rules for the release of higher scales of pay, for admissibility of special pay and other allowances to the employees shall be the same as applicable from time to time to the employees holding the corresponding posts in the concerned departments of Himachal Pradesh Government with which the present scales had been equated. Accordingly, the petitioner’s parity is to be maintained with his counter-parts serving in the H.P. Public Works Department. It is for the employer to decide which pay scale has to be paid to which category. It is only when the pay scales are fixed arbitrarily or irrationally that the Courts may intervene. However, in the present case only for the reason that the posts were sanctioned on the pattern of H.P. State Electricity Board vide Annexure P-4, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to the same pay scale which is being paid to his counter-parts in the H.P. State Electricity Board. There is considerable force in the submission of Mr. Onkar Jairath that the 5 respondent-University is an educational institution and not a commercial organization. The duties of Sub Divisional Officer/Assistant Engineer working in the University are not comparable with the duties discharged by his counter- parts in the H.P. State Electricity Board. His duties are confined only in the University Campus unlike his counter- parts who are responsible for maintaining/restoring electricity in a particular division. Consequently, it is held that the petitioner is not entitled to get the pay scales payable to the employees of H.P. State Electricity Board in view of statute 5.6 (1). He is entitled to pay scale payable to his counter-parts in Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department. There is no illegality or arbitrariness in the decision of the University not to grant the pay scale prevalent in H.P. State Electricity Board to its employees. Accordingly, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. January 9, 2009. (cr)