Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 867 (HP)

Budhi Ram Justa v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2015-07-10

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. Petitioner was appointed as Steno-typist in the Industries Department on 11.4.1977. He was promoted to the post of Senior Stenographer on 11.4.1989 in the pay scale of Rs. 5800-9200. On completion of 8 years of service in the grade, he was granted pay scale of Rs. 6400-10640 under the Assured Career Progression Scheme with effect from 11.4.1997. Applications were invited only from in-service employees of the State possessing 3 years service having knowledge of word processing on computer for the post of Junior Scale Stenographers in the H.P. Secretariat. Petitioner also opted for the same. He was sent on deputation on 15.6.1999. He joined his duties in the H.P. Secretariat on 24.6.1999. He was permanently absorbed in the H.P. Secretariat on 10.10.2000. Pay of the petitioner was abruptly reduced from Rs. 8925/- to Rs. 8100/- in the month of May, 2005. Petitioner assailed this decision by filing O.A. No. 2593 of 2005 before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. It was disposed of vide order dated 21.10.2005. The representation made by the petitioner was rejected on 31.1.2006. Petitioner again assailed decision dated 31.1.2006 before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1522 of 2006. It was transferred to this Court and assigned CWP (T) No. 13593 of 2008. It was decided on 7.1.2011. The LPA was preferred against the judgment dated 7.1.2011. The same was dismissed on 2.3.2012. Thereafter, impugned order Annexure P-15 dated 5.6.2012 was passed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 2. Petitioner was permanently absorbed in the H.P. Secretariat on 10.10.2000. In the parent department, his pay scale was Rs. 6400-10640. The pay scale of Junior Scale Stenographer in the H.P. Secretariat was Rs. 4400-7000. Petitioner was permitted to retain his pay scale of Rs. 6400-10640, but the same was abruptly reduced in the month of May, 2005. 3. Mr. P.D. Nanda has vehemently argued that the case of the petitioner was to be considered under FR 5-A. Case of his client was neither governed under FR 22 (1) (a) (2) nor FR 22(1) (a) (3). 4. Mr. M.A. Khan, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that pay of the petitioner has been fixed strictly as per law. He has referred to FR 22 (1) (a) (2) and FR 22(1) (a) (3). 5. 4. Mr. M.A. Khan, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that pay of the petitioner has been fixed strictly as per law. He has referred to FR 22 (1) (a) (2) and FR 22(1) (a) (3). 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 6. Petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit. It is evident from the noting portion, i.e. Annexure P-21 that the matter was discussed qua those employees, who were getting higher pay scale in their parents departments, but were absorbed/sent on deputation in the H.P. Secretariat. Issue qua clerks, who had come on deputation/transferred to Secretariat, was resolved vide Annexure P-22 dated 11.2.1991. It is clear from Annexure P-21 that the matter qua Junior Scale Stenographers was also discussed. It is mentioned therein that the decision principally taken qua clerks should also be made applicable to the Junior Scale Stenographers. How the case of the petitioner and similarly situate persons is segregated is not borne out from the record except that the pay of clerks was protected vide memorandum dated 11.2.1991. The pay of the petitioner was also required to be protected on the analogy of Annexure P-22 dated 11.2.1991 and Annexure P-1 dated 26.3.1991. The petitioner has been discriminated against by not giving him the benefit of decision which had been taken vide Annexure P-22 dated 11.2.1991 and Annexure P-1 dated 26.3.1991. Pay of the petitioner was also required to be protected by giving him the benefit of FR-5-A. His case was neither governed under FR 22 (1) (a) (2) nor FR 22(1) (a) (3). He was getting pay scale of Rs. 6400-10640 and was working on the higher pay scale of Senior Scale Stenographer, but the pay scale of Junior Scale Stenographer was Rs. 4400-7000 in the Secretariat. In view of this, pay of the petitioner was required to be protected since he was working on the higher cadre in the parent department. Pay of the petitioner has been reduced without issuing him any show cause notice. Petitioner, in fact, was paid initially pay scale of Rs. 6400-10640. Action of the respondents not to give benefit to the petitioner on the analogy of Annexure P-1 and P-22, is arbitrary, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Pay of the petitioner has been reduced without issuing him any show cause notice. Petitioner, in fact, was paid initially pay scale of Rs. 6400-10640. Action of the respondents not to give benefit to the petitioner on the analogy of Annexure P-1 and P-22, is arbitrary, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Respondents had been directed by the Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench of this Court to consider the case of the petitioner as per Annexure P-22. The Chief Secretary has failed to take into consideration true letter and spirit of letter dated 11.2.1991 whereby the clerks, who had come on deputation/transferred to Secretariat, their pay was protected. It was immaterial whether the pay structure of the Clerks and Junior Scale Stenographers was different. The employer was the same. Thus, the principles governing one set of employee were to be applied uniformly to another set of employee to avoid discrimination. Petitioner was similarly situate vis-a-vis whose pay was protected vide Annexure P-22 dated 11.2.1991 and Annexure P-1 dated 26.3.1991. 7. Accordingly, in view of the discussion and analysis made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-15 dated 5.6.2012 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to fix the pay of the petitioner on the analogy of Annexure P-22 dated 11.2.1991 read with Annexure P-1 dated 26.3.1991, within a period of 8 weeks from today. The pensionary/retiral benefits of the petitioner shall be determined after the pay is fixed, as directed hereinabove. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.