Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1034 (HP)

Jagdeep Singh Guleria v. State of H. P.

2011-03-08

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2011
JUDGMENT The petitioner who is working as Law Officer in the Office of learned Advocate General prays that he should be granted the same pay scale which is being paid to District Attorney. 2. The undisputed facts are that the post of Law Officer in the Office of Advocate General was created in the year 1979 in the pay scale of Rs.825-1580/-. Revision of pay scale took place w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The pay scale attached to the post of Assistant District Attorney-cum-Public Prosecutor was also Rs.825-1580/-. The pay scale of Law Officer in the Office of Advocate General was revised to Rs.2000-3500/-. However, the pay scale of the Assistant District Attorney-cum-Public Prosecutor was revised to Rs.2200-4000/-. Revision of pay scale again took place on 1.1.1996. The pay scale of Assistant District Attorney was revised to Rs.7880-11660/- and that of Law Officer to Rs.6400-10640/-. The Feeder category to fill up the post of Law Officer in the Office of Advocate General were Legal Assistant and they were also given the same pay scale. The petitioner joined as Law Officer on 1.8.2000. He thereafter made a representation that since the pay scale of ADA’s and Law Officer of the Advocate General was equal prior to 1986, the same should have been equal after revision in 1986 and in subsequent pay revisions thereafter. He filed a representation but his grievance was not redressed. The petitioner filed original application before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. This petition was ordered to be treated as a representation. Thereafter, the Government passed an order placing him in the scale of Rs.7000-10980/-. The petitioner claims that he should be given the same pay scale as that of ADA’s on the ground that he is doing the same work. 3. In my view, there is no merit in the petition. The petitioner was offered appointment in the year 2000 and he accepted the same. He cannot now turn around and claim that he is entitled to higher scale. The claim of the petitioner that he is entitled to the same scale as that of Assistant District Attorney is also not tenable. The petitioner was offered appointment in the year 2000 and he accepted the same. He cannot now turn around and claim that he is entitled to higher scale. The claim of the petitioner that he is entitled to the same scale as that of Assistant District Attorney is also not tenable. The Assistant District Attorney’s work is in the field and though they also are doing legal work in Court, it cannot be said that the work being done by the applicant is identical to that being done by Assistant District Attorney’s. The applicant is in an advantageous position because he is working in the Office of Advocate General and cannot be posted outside Shimla, whereas Assistant District Attorney’s can be posted anywhere in the State. There is no comparison between two posts. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.