Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1223 (HP)

Shesh Ram v. F. C. -cum-Secretary

2011-03-11

V.K.SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT V.K. Sharma, Judge. The learned vice counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits at the very outset that the case of the petitioners is covered under order dated 2.7.2003, of the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in O.A No. 1687 of 2000, titled Shri Chet Ram and others vs. State of H.P. and another, a copy whereof has been brought on record as Annexure A-3, as upheld by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 17.11.2005, in CWP No. 171 of 2004, State of Himachal Pradesh & another vs. Chet Ram and others, reported as Latest HLJ 2006 (HP) 327, text whereof (the High Court judgment) is as under:- “This writ petition is directed against the order-judgment dated 2nd July, 2003 of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal whereby the Original Application filed by the respondents has been allowed and they have been held entitled to the pay scale of Rs.400-600 with effect from March 1, 1980 as revised from time to time. However, the respondents have been held entitled t o arrears only from the period of filing of Original Application before the Administrative Tribunal. 2. The respondents are working as cooks in the Department of Health and Family Welfare invoking the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ they claimed that they are entitled to pay scale of Rs.400-600 analogy of pay scale of cooks working in the Tourism and Hospitality Department of Indira Gandhi Medical College and its associate hospitals and on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Tribunal in TA No.253 of 1986 pertaining to the cooks of Police Department. The respondents demanded that they pay should at least be the same as the scale of pay of other cooks in the service of the Government. They termed the action of the Government in not treating them equal to the cooks working in the other Departments of the Government as discriminatory and without any rational basis. 3. As already noticed, the learned Administrative Tribunal ahs allowed the Original Application of the respondents and they have been held entitled to the pay scale of Rs.400-600 with effect from March 1, 1980 as revised from time to time. 3. As already noticed, the learned Administrative Tribunal ahs allowed the Original Application of the respondents and they have been held entitled to the pay scale of Rs.400-600 with effect from March 1, 1980 as revised from time to time. The tribunal in this regard took into consideration that the nature of work being performed by the respondents is the same and similar to the one by the cooks working in the other Departments of the Government. The Tribunal also took into consideration that the cooks of Police Department had earlier come to the Court by filing CWP No. 618 of 1985, which has later on transferred to it and registered as TA No. 253 of 1986 for the grant of pay scale of Rs.400-600 with effect from March 1, 1980. The Government being aggrieved by the said order took the matter to the Supreme Court by filing SLP (Civil) No. 15011/1996, but the same was dismissed by the Supreme Court on January 20, 1997. 4. The respondents whoa re working as cooks under the same employer cannot be treated differently in relation to their pay especially when the nature of work performed by them is the same as is being performed by the cooks working in the other Departments of the Government. 5. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the Tribunal has not committed any error in holding that the respondents are entitled to pay scale of Rs.400-600 with effect from March 1, 1980 as revised from time to time and arrears will be payable only from the period of three years prior to filing of the Original Application. 6. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.” 2. In view of the above, if on facts, the case of the petitioners is covered under the aforesaid order dated 2.7.2003 (Annexure A-3), in O.A No. 1687 of 2000, as upheld by this court vide judgment dated 17.11.2005, in CWP No. 171 of 2004 and they are similarly situate, they shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and the benefit of the said order/judgment shall be extended to them, within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioners, after affording an opportunity of being heard to them/their duly authorized representative, if so desired. Needless to say that consequential benefits, if any, would follow. 3. Needless to say that consequential benefits, if any, would follow. 3. The petition, so also pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms.