ORDER : 1. The post of Senior Scale Stenographer held by the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 10300/34800+3800 grade pay in the respondent-Printing and Stationary Department was upgraded on 15.3.2012 to the post of Personal Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 10300-34800+4200 grade pay with immediate effect. The petitioner wants that the up-gradation should have been w.e.f. 6.8.2003 i.e. the date when he had submitted his representation seeking upgradation of the post held by him and, therefore, he should be considered and promoted to upgraded post of Personal Assistant w.e.f. 6.8.2003. His prayer has not found favour with the respondents, hence the instant petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are that: (i) The petitioner joined the respondent-department as Steno-typist in August 1988. He worked as such till January 1998 when the post of Steno-typist was upgraded by the respondent-department as Senior Scale Stenographer. On 6.8.2003, the petitioner represented to the respondent-department for upgrading the post of Senior Scale Stenographer to the post of Personal Assistant on the ground that similar posts have been upgraded in the other departments. His representation was rejected on 19.12.2003. He filed an original application before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal against the rejection of his representation. This original application was decided by this Court as CWP (T) No. 11091 of 2008 on 21.2.2011. The communication dated 19.12.2003 was quashed being a non-speaking order. The respondent-department was directed to decide the petitioner's representation afresh by passing speaking order within a period of two months. (ii) In compliance to the judgment dated 21.2.2011, the respondent No. 1 passed a detailed order on 25.4.2011 deciding petitioner’s representation. Respondent No. 1 accepted the representation and ordered that the Administrative Department should move the case for upgradation of the post of Senior Scale Stenographer to that of Personal Assistant to the Finance Department for its concurrence and to take the matter to the CMM on receipt of its advice and for final approval of the cabinet. (iii) The matter was accordingly processed by the respondents and finally office order was issued on 15.3.2012 upgrading the post of Senior Scale Stenographer to the post of Personal Assistant. In terms of this order, the incumbent of the post of Senior Scale Stenographer i.e. the petitioner was held entitled for the pay scale of Rs. 10300-34800+4200 grade pay as Personal Assistant w.e.f. 15.3.2012. In terms of this order, the incumbent of the post of Senior Scale Stenographer i.e. the petitioner was held entitled for the pay scale of Rs. 10300-34800+4200 grade pay as Personal Assistant w.e.f. 15.3.2012. The upgradation was ordered with immediate effect. (iv) In tune with office order dated 15.3.2012, the petitioner submitted his joining as Personal Assistant on 15.3.2012 itself. A year later i.e. on 23.3.2013, the petitioner filed a representation complaining that the post of Senior Scale Stenographer should have been upgraded to the post of Personal Assistant w.e.f. 6.8.2003 i.e. the date when he had first represented in this regard instead of actual date of upgradation i.e. 15.3.2012. Petitioner claimed appointment/promotion to the upgraded post w.e.f. 6.8.2003. His representation did not find favour with the respondents, compelling him to prefer the instant petition. 3. Contentions: (i) Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his plea that the upgradation of the post of Senior Scale Stenographer should have been from a retrospective date of 6.8.2003 has placed reliance upon the order dated 25.4.2011 (Annexure P-3). According to learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No. 1 while accepting petitioner’s representation for upgradation of the post had observed that there was no need of any representation from the incumbent and rather it was the responsibility of the department to have moved the case and ensured that the post of Senior Scale Stenographer gets upgraded to that of the post of Personal Assistant looking at the volume of the work in the Directorate. The attention in this regard was invited to following two paras of the order: “6. It seems that there has been a gross discrimination in non upgradation of the post of Senior Scale Stenographer to that of Personal Assistant in the Directorate of Printing & Stationary. The work in the Department has increased manifold and the post of Controller, Printing and Stationary is being manned either by Indian Administrative Service Officer or a senior Himachal Administrative Service Officer. There is ample justification for the upgradation of the post of Senior Scale Stenographer to that of Personal Assistant in the Directorate of Printing and Stationary. Otherwise also as per the revised pay scales, the pay scales of Senior Scale Stenographer and Personal Assistant are similar i.e. Rs. 10300-34800 except grade pay which is Rs. 3800 in the case of Senior Scale Stenographer and Rs. Otherwise also as per the revised pay scales, the pay scales of Senior Scale Stenographer and Personal Assistant are similar i.e. Rs. 10300-34800 except grade pay which is Rs. 3800 in the case of Senior Scale Stenographer and Rs. 4200 in the case of Personal Assistant, meaning thereby that the financial implication in the upgradation would be only Rs. 400 (Rs. 4200 - Rs. 3800). The representation is accordingly accepted and it is ordered that the A.D. should again move the case to the Finance Department for their concurrence and take the matter to the CMM on the receipt of their advice for final approval of the Cabinet. 7. I feel that otherwise also there was no need of any representation form the present incumbent and it was incumbent on the Department to have moved a case and ensured that the post of Senior Scale Stenographer is upgraded to that of Personal Assistant looking at the volume of the work in the Directorate and the Finance Department Office Memorandum No. Fin (PR)B(7)-14/89 dated 20th June, 1994.” (ii) Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the post of Senior Scale Stenographer was actually upgraded to that of Personal Assistant only on 15.3.2012. There was no post of Personal Assistant in the respondent department prior to 15.3.2012. Therefore, there was no question of appointing/promoting the petitioner to the post of Personal Assistant w.e.f. 6.8.2003. Learned Additional Advocate General also argued that the creation/upgradation of the post lies in the exclusive domain of the employer. 4. Observations: (i) By now, it is well settled that questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled from such promotions pertain to the field of policy and are within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India. It will be appropriate to extract relevant observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court made in this regard in P.U. Joshi and Others vs. Accountant General, Ahmedabad and Others, (2003) 2 SCC 632: “10. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties. It will be appropriate to extract relevant observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court made in this regard in P.U. Joshi and Others vs. Accountant General, Ahmedabad and Others, (2003) 2 SCC 632: “10. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of Policy is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the Statutory Tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/subtraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a Government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service.” (ii) Coming to the facts of the case, the petitioner was appointed as Steno-typist on 18.8.1988. This post was further upgraded to that of Senior Scale Stenographer on 14.8.1998. The petitioner had represented for further upgradation of the post of Senior Scale Stenographer held by him to that of Personal Assistant. This post was further upgraded to that of Senior Scale Stenographer on 14.8.1998. The petitioner had represented for further upgradation of the post of Senior Scale Stenographer held by him to that of Personal Assistant. His representation dated 6.8.2003 was initially rejected by the respondents on 19.12.2003. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on 21.2.2011, petitioner's representation was considered afresh by respondent No. 1. In the fresh decision taken on 25.4.2011, the representation was accepted. The proposal of the petitioner for upgradation of post of Senior Scale Stenographer to that of Personal Assistant was recommended to the Finance department. The matter was processed thereafter. It was finally approved by the Cabinet. The CMM in its meeting held on 9.3.2012 approved to upgrade the post prospectively. Consequent upon this approval, the office order was issued on 15.3.2012 upgrading the post of Senior Scale Stenographer to the post of Personal Assistant. The petitioner holding the post of Senior Scale Stenographer became Personal Assistant and entitled for the attached pay scale to the newly upgraded post of Personal Assistant. He accepted the terms and conditions of office order dated 15.3.2012, in terms of which the post was upgraded with immediate effect and joined his duties on 15.3.2012 itself. (iii) The post of Personal Assistant was not in existence prior to 15.3.2012, therefore, petitioner cannot be held entitled for the benefits of the upgraded post prior to 15.3.2012. The reliance placed upon the observations of respondent No. 1 in the order dated 25.4.2011 that the Department should have moved the case for upgrading the post of Senior Scale Stenographer, will not advance the case of the petitioner. All said and done, the fact remains that post was actually upgraded on 15.3.2012. The creation/upgradation of the post lies within the domain of the State government. (iv) The petitioner has not been able to substantiate violation of any of his constitutional or legal rights by the impugned action of the respondents in upgrading the post of Senior Scale Stenographer to that of Personal Assistant prospectively that is w.e.f. 15.3.2012. There is no vested right in the petitioner to seek his promotion to the post of Personal Assistant w.e.f. 6.8.2003 more so when the post in question came into existence only on 15.3.2012. There is no vested right in the petitioner to seek his promotion to the post of Personal Assistant w.e.f. 6.8.2003 more so when the post in question came into existence only on 15.3.2012. Therefore, no fault can be found with the action of the respondents in turning down petitioner’s claim of retrospective promotion and pay scale attached to the post of Personal Assistant w.e.f. 6.8.2003. 5. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.