Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 139 (HP)

KALYAN CHAND v. H. P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

2009-03-12

RAJIV SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral):-The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Line Man on 28.3.1962 on regular basis. He was promoted as Line Man on 13.7.1966. One Shri Harbans Lal was appointed Assistant Line Man (work-charged) on 17.2.1962. He was promoted as Line Man on 6.9.1973. However, the pay scale of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 137/- on 1.1.1972 and that of Shri Harbans Lal was fixed at Rs. 180/- with effect from 1.9.1971. 2. The case of the petitioner was recommended by the Superintending Engineer for removal of anomaly on 13.6.1988. The Chief Accounts Officer has also observed on 28.6.1993 that the Secretary, H.P. State Electricity Board was being requested to review the anomaly which has arisen due to different pay scales of work charged and regular employees. The petitioner has also filed application for redressal of his grievance vide Original Application No. 1899 of 1994. The learned Tribunal directed to treat the original application as representation. The same was rejected by the Secretary on 21.1.1995. There is fallacy in the stand of respondent-Board for denying higher pay scale to the petitioner vis-à-vis Shri Harbans Lal. The petitioner was appointed on regular basis as Assistant Line Man. Shri Harbans Lal was appointed though before the petitioner on 17.2.1962 but he was appointed work charged Assistant Line Man. The petitioner has been promoted as Line Man on 13.7.1966 and Shri Harbans Lal has been promoted on 6.9.1973. The petitioner has been fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 137/- on 1.1.1972. Shri Harbans Lal was admittedly appointed initially on work charged basis and promoted as Line Man after seven years of the petitioner’s promotion and has been fixed at Rs. 180/- w.e.f. 1.9.1971. The pay scale of the work charged and regular Line Man could not be similar. The persons who are appointed on regular basis are superior vis-à-vis the category of work charged status. The appointment of the person as work charged is on a particular project. The appointment made on work charged basis is more precarious vis-à-vis the persons appointed on regular basis. Accordingly, the person who has been appointed on regular basis and promoted as Line Man before Shri Harbans Lal cannot be denied the higher pay scale. The appointment of the person as work charged is on a particular project. The appointment made on work charged basis is more precarious vis-à-vis the persons appointed on regular basis. Accordingly, the person who has been appointed on regular basis and promoted as Line Man before Shri Harbans Lal cannot be denied the higher pay scale. The recommendations made by the Superintending Engineer and the observations made by the Chief Accounts Officer could not be over looked by the Secretary while dealing with the representation made by the petitioner. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The Office Order Annexure A-5 dated 21.1.1995 is quashed and set aside. The respondent-Board is directed to grant higher pay scale to the petitioner from the date his junior Shri Harbans Lal has been granted within eight weeks from today. No costs.