JUDGMENT P.S. Rana, J. 1. Present civil writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pleading therein that on dated 20.5.1977 petitioner was appointed as electrician in the office of respondent No. 2 on daily wages. It is further pleaded that on dated 13.12.1979 petitioner was appointed as electrician on regular basis w.e.f. 13.12.1979 in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040. It is further pleaded that on dated 15.5.1992 due to lack of promotional avenues available in office of respondent No. 2, respondent No. 2 has given higher pay scale after completion of 12 years of service as per circular issued by the respondents. It is further pleaded that on dated 4.8.1995 petitioner was re-designated as Boiler Attendant which was re-designated as Chargeman (Boiler). It is further pleaded that on dated 1.1.1996 pay of petitioner was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.950-1800 and petitioner was temporarily re-designated as Chargeman (Boiler) which is the pay scale to the post of Electrician. It is further pleaded that legally the petitioner was entitled to the pay scale of Chargeman (Boiler) i.e. Rs. 1350-2400 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. It is further pleaded that on 1.1.1996 respondent No. 1 had decided to introduce Himachal Pradesh Government pay pattern in respondent No. 2 organization w.e.f. 1.1.1996 replacing the pay pattern of Haryana Breweries and further pleaded that pursuant thereto the pay of petitioner was fixed in pay scale of Rs. 950-1800 and petitioner was temporarily re-designated as Chargeman (Boiler). It is further pleaded that on dated 1.12.1999 pay of the petitioner was to be fixed at the rate of Rs. 1480/- instead of Rs.1440/- with all consequential benefits. It is further pleaded that petitioner be granted pay scale of Rs. 1350-2400 which was granted to the post of Chargeman (Boilder) w.e.f. 1.1.1996. It is also pleaded that respondent be directed to regularize the services of petitioner as Chargeman (Boiler) w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Prayer for acceptance of civil writ petition is sought. 2. Per contra reply filed on behalf of contesting respondent Nos. 1 and 2 pleading therein that petition is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that petitioner was appointed as daily wages Electrician in May 1977 and his services were regularized w.e.f. 13.12.1979 on the basis of Punjab Breweries pay pattern of Rs. 250-725. 2. Per contra reply filed on behalf of contesting respondent Nos. 1 and 2 pleading therein that petition is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that petitioner was appointed as daily wages Electrician in May 1977 and his services were regularized w.e.f. 13.12.1979 on the basis of Punjab Breweries pay pattern of Rs. 250-725. It is further pleaded that prior to 1.6.1983 pay pattern of Punjab Breweries was being implemented for the employees of country liquor bottling plant Mehatpur i.e. respondent No.2. It is further pleaded that as per persistent demand of employee unions the same was replaced by M/s Haryana Breweries Ltd. Murthal w.e.f. 1.6.1983. It is also pleaded that pay scale of Rs. 250-725 of the post of Electrician was equated with the Haryana Breweries pay scale of Rs. 420-700 which pay scale was subsequently revised to the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 It is further pleaded that in order to avoid the stagnation of the employees on the same pay scale M/s Haryana Breweries intimated that next higher scale has been allowed to the employees who have completed 12 years service without any disciplinary action. It is further pleaded that replying respondent adopted the pay scale pattern of Haryana Breweries and petitioner was placed in the higher pay scale of Rs. 1400-40-1600-50-2300-EB-60-2600 w.e.f. 13.12.1991. It is further pleaded that as per Haryana Breweries Ltd. there was no provision of granting additional increment on the date of releasing next higher pay scale on the date of completion of 12 years of services. It is pleaded that in Country Liquor Bottling Plant Mehatpur two posts of Boiler Attendant existed and both posts were lying vacant. It is further pleaded that as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules both posts were to be filled up by way of promotion from amongst existing Assistant Boiler Operators who had minimum qualification of Matriculation and further possessed Boiler Operator Certificate. It is further pleaded that one of the Assistant Boiler Operator out of the two who was matriculate and possessing certificate of Boiler Operator (Grade-II) was promoted to the post of Boiler Attendant on the recommendation of DPC. It is further pleaded that re-designation of petitioner was Boiler Attendant would not confer upon him any right to claim the post of Boiler Attendant. It is further pleaded that re-designation of petitioner was Boiler Attendant would not confer upon him any right to claim the post of Boiler Attendant. It is also pleaded that thereafter it was decided to grant pay pattern of H.P. Government to the employees of Country Liquor Bottling Plant in lieu of Haryana Breweries pay pattern w.e.f. 1.1.1996. It is further pleaded that pay scale of Rs. 950-1800 attached to the post of Electrician was accepted by the petitioner and undertaking on this behalf was given by the petitioner and the pay scale of the post of Electrician was released to him though he was temporarily re-designated as Chargeman (Boiler). It is further pleaded that though the petitioner was temporarily re-designated as Chargeman (Boiler) his seniority would continue against the post of Electrician only and he was offered pay scale of Electrician i.e. Rs. 950-1800 and same was released to the petitioner on 1.1.1996 which was accepted by the petitioner and undertaking was also given by the petitioner. It is further pleaded that petitioner had himself accepted the pay scale of Rs.950-1800 and therefore he is not legally entitled for the relief sought. It is further pleaded that petitioner has himself accepted the pay scale of Electrician vide his undertaking dated 14.4.1998 and therefore present civil writ petition is not maintainable at this belated stage. Prayer for dismissal of civil writ petition is sought. 3. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the parties and also perused record carefully. 4. Following points arise for determination in present civil writ petition:- 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of pay scale of Rs. 1350-2400 for post of Chargeman (Boiler) w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and whether the petitioner is entitled for regularization to the post of Chargeman (Boiler) w.e.f. 1.1.1996 along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for fixation of his pay at Rs. 1480/- after continue service of 12 years w.e.f. 13.12.1991 with all consequential monetary benefits? Findings on point No. 1 5. Submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is legally entitled for pay scale of boiler attendant which was subsequently re-designated as Chargeman (Boiler) from the date when he started working as boiler attendant is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Findings on point No. 1 5. Submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is legally entitled for pay scale of boiler attendant which was subsequently re-designated as Chargeman (Boiler) from the date when he started working as boiler attendant is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. As per record it is proved on record that initially the petitioner was appointed as Electrician in the year 1977 in the establishment of respondent No. 2 and thereafter he was appointed as Electrician on regular basis in the pay scale of 1200-2040 on 13.12.1979. It is also proved on record that due to lack of promotional avenue available in organization of respondent No.2, respondent No. 2 had given higher pay scale after completion of 12 years of service and it is also proved on record that w.e.f. 4.8.1995 the petitioner was re-designated as Chargeman (Boiler). It is also proved on record that although the petitioner worked as boiler attendant but his salary was paid as per pay scale of Electrician only. It is well settled law that as per Article 14 of Constitution of India employee is legally entitled for equal pay for equal work. Article 14 of the Constitution of India is based upon equality before law. As per Article 13(2) of the Constitution of India no law can be enacted which runs contrary to fundamental rights guaranteed under part III of Constitution of India. Main object of Article 13 is to secure dominance of Constitution of India. (See – AIR 2014 SC 2175 titled Renu and others vs. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari and another) It was held in case reported in AIR 2014 SC 2140 titled Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. Director Central Bureau of Investigation and another that Court must be sensitive relating to Article 14 of Constitution of India i.e. concept of right of equality. 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents that petitioner has himself admitted the pay scale of Electrician and is not entitled for pay scale of boiler attendant in view of his own undertaking is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that there can be no estoppel against the fundamental constitutional legal right as mentioned in Article 14 of the Constitution of India i.e. concept of equality before law. It is well settled law that there can be no estoppel against the fundamental constitutional legal right as mentioned in Article 14 of the Constitution of India i.e. concept of equality before law. (See (2000) 3 SCC 588 titled Nar Singh Pal vs. Union of India and others, See (2007)12 SCC 43 titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Gehar Singh). 7. Hence it is held that respondents will pay the salary to the petitioner in the pay scale of Chargeman (Boiler) w.e.f. 1.1.1996 along with 9% interest till petitioner worked as Chargeman (Boiler) after adjusting the salary already paid to the petitioner as Electrician. Findings on Point No. 2 8. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is legally entitled for fixation of his salary at Rs. 1480/- instead of Rs. 1440/- after completion of 12 years of service w.e.f. 13.12.1991 is also accepted for the reasons mentioned hereinafter. It is proved on record that salary of petitioner was Rs. 1440/- after having been given the increment on dated 1.12.1991. It is proved on record that after service of 12 years salary of the petitioner was also fixed at Rs. 1440/- instead of Rs. 1480/-. Hence it is held that salary of the petitioner will be fixed at the rate of Rs. 1480/- w.e.f. 13.12.1991 with all consequential monetary benefits. 9. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is also entitled to regularize the services as Chargeman (Boiler) w.e.f. 1.1.1996 is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that petitioner was appointed as Boiler attendant which was subsequently re-designated as Chargeman (Boiler) as stop gap arrangement only. It is well settled law that regularization of service is as per promotional Rules and as per merits and as per recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee. There is no order of any competent authority that service of petitioner was regularized w.e.f. 01.01.1996 for the post of Chargeman (Boiler). It was held in case reported in AIR 1989 SC 696 titled Harbans Misra and others vs. Railway Board and others that a person appointed to a post on an ad hoc basis cannot have any lien on the post. It is was held in case reported in 1995 Supp.(3) SCC 363 titled Dr. It was held in case reported in AIR 1989 SC 696 titled Harbans Misra and others vs. Railway Board and others that a person appointed to a post on an ad hoc basis cannot have any lien on the post. It is was held in case reported in 1995 Supp.(3) SCC 363 titled Dr. Kashinath Nagayya Ibatte vs. State of Maharashtra and others that temporary candidate working on ad hoc basis have to give place to candidates selected in accordance with law. It was held in case reported in AIR 1992 SC 2130 titled State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others that ad hoc employee should be regularized in accordance with Rules only and employee should be eligible and fit pursuant to post. It was held in case reported in AIR 1994 SC 1804 titled State of Haryana and others vs. Mahabir Prasad Sharma and others that ad hoc appointment is temporary appointment pending regular recruitment. It was held in case reported in AIR 1992 SC 2070 titled Director Institute of Management Development U.P. vs. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava that ad hoc appointment and contractual appointment are for a limited period and after expiry of period the post comes to an end automatically. 10. In view of above stated facts it is held that (1) petitioner will be entitled to the pay scale of Chargeman (Boiler) w.e.f. 1.1.1996 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the petitioner worked as Chargeman (Boiler) subject to adjustment of salary already paid qua post of Electrician. (2) It is held that pay of the petitioner will be fixed at Rs. 1480/- instead of Rs. 1440/- w.e.f. 13.12.1991 with all consequential monetary benefits. (3) All other reliefs claimed by the petitioner decline and it is held that all other reliefs merged in the points determined by Court. Petition stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s) also stands disposed of.