Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 458 (HP)

KESHAV RAM SHARMA v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2022-08-17

SATYEN VAIDYA

body2022
ORDER : 1. Facts necessary for adjudication of the instant petition are as under: (i) Petitioner though selected as Shastri by the respondents, was appointed as JBT on ad-hoc basis w.e.f. 28.04.2014. His services were converted on tenure basis in 1985. (ii) Petitioner was appointed as Shastri on tenure basis in October, 1989 in the pay-scale of 1600-2925/-. The services of the petitioner as Shastri were regularized w.e.f. 01.01.1994 in the reduced pay-scale of Rs. 1500-2700/-. (iii) Petitioner by way of TA No. 5772 of 2015 claimed the pre-revised scale of Rs. 1640-2925/- (revised to 5480-8925/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996) and further claimed ACP in the scale of Rs. 5800-9200/- after completion of eight years’ service. TA No. 5772/2015 was disposed of by H.P. State Administrative Tribunal with directions to respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner. (iv) Petitioner made a detailed representation to the respondents, but the same was rejected vide office order dated 20.08.2016 (Annexure A-1) on the ground that the pay-scale of 1640-2925/- (pre-revised) was applicable and admissible to only those C&V teachers who were appointed before 23rd March, 1989. Thus, the grant of pay-scale of 1500-2700/- (pre-revised) to the petitioner was justified on the basis of Notification dated 23.03.1989 issued under the H.P. Civil Services Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1990. 2. Petitioner has thus filed the instant petition praying for the following substantive reliefs: “(i) That the impugned order dated 20thAugust, 2016 Annexure A-1 may kindly be quashed and set aside, because the order dated 20th August, 2016 has been passed by the Respondent No. 3 in violation of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP (T) No. 5759/2008 titled as Subhash Chand and Another vs. State of H.P. and Others as well as in CWP No. 3462/2009 titled as Gopal Sharma vs. State of H.P. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the ad-hoc and tenure service period of the applicant for the purpose of increments, seniority, qualifying service, pensionary benefits and all other financial benefits under the law.” 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents and have also gone through the record carefully. 4. It is not in dispute that petitioner was appointed as JBT on 28.04.1984. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents and have also gone through the record carefully. 4. It is not in dispute that petitioner was appointed as JBT on 28.04.1984. His services as JBT were converted on tenure basis w.e.f. 1985 and thereafter the petitioner worked as such till October, 1989 when he was appointed as Shastri on tenure basis in the pay-scale of 1640-2925/- The date of regularization of the petitioner as Shastri w.e.f. 01.01.1994 is also not in dispute. 5. The erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 24.02.2016 disposed of the T.A. No. 5772 of 2015 by issuing following directions: “In view of above, the transferred application is disposed of in terms of the aforementioned judgment in CWP (T) No. 5759/2015, with a direction to the respondents that subject to the above verification and on finding the applicant to be similarly situate as above, benefit of said judgment, if the same has attained finality and implemented, shall also be extended to him along with consequential benefits if any, as per law, without any discrimination, with in three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the applicant.” 6. The question now for determination before this court is whether the impugned order dated 20.08.2016 (Annexure A-1) is in consonance with the judgment dated 05.07.2010 passed by this Court in CWP (T) No. 5759 of 2008 titled as Subhash Chand and Another vs. State of H.P and Others? 7. Perusal of judgment dated 05.07.2010 passed by this Court in CWP (T) No. 5759 of 2008 reveals that petitioners therein were appointed Language Teachers in 1988 in the pay-scale of Rs. 480-620/- and were subsequently placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2925/-. After revision of pay-scales petitioners in CWP (T) No. 5759 of 2008 were granted pay-scale of Rs. 5480-8925/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996. They were regularized in the year 1999 and on such regularization, their pay-scale was reduced to Rs. 5000-8100/- (pre-revised 1500-2700/-). This Court while passing the aforesaid judgment had taken notice of the Notification dated 23.03.1989, whereby the pay-scale of Shastris/Language Teachers was prescribed as 1640-2925/- subsequently revised to 5480-8925/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996. 5480-8925/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996. They were regularized in the year 1999 and on such regularization, their pay-scale was reduced to Rs. 5000-8100/- (pre-revised 1500-2700/-). This Court while passing the aforesaid judgment had taken notice of the Notification dated 23.03.1989, whereby the pay-scale of Shastris/Language Teachers was prescribed as 1640-2925/- subsequently revised to 5480-8925/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996. In the said case, the claim of petitioners therein was contested on the ground that pay-scale granted to the Language Teachers/Shastris vide Notification dated 23.03.1989, was applicable/admissible only to TGTs as was clarified by the Government vide communication dated 21.12.1989. The contention so raised on behalf of the respondents in CWP (T) No. 5759 of 2008 was rejected on the ground that administrative instructions could not supersede the statutory Rules. Thus, communication dated 21.12.1989 was held not sufficient to supersede the Rules, which fixed the pay-scale of Shastris/Language Teachers at Rs. 5480-8925/-. 8. In Subhash Chand supra, the petitioners therein were thus granted the benefit of pre 23.3.1989 services rendered by them as JBTs in the pay-scale of Rs. 480-620/-. Petitioner, in the instant case, had also worked as JBT since 1984 till October, 1989 in the same pay-scale as was considered in CWP (T) No. 5759 of 2008 by this Court. Petitioner was also initially granted the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925 (revised to Rs. 5480-8925) on his appointment as Shastri and the pay scale was reduced to Rs. 1500-2700 (revised as Rs. 5000-8100) only on his regularisation on the post of Shastri w.e.f. 1.1.1994. Thus, the case of petitioner herein was similar to the petitioners in Subhash Chand supra). 9. The impugned order dated 20.08.2016 (Annexure A-1) has been passed without taking into consideration the aforesaid aspects which in fact were the basis for grant of relief in CWP (T) No. 5759 of 2008. Since, petitioners in CWP (T) No. 5759 of 2008 were similarly situated as the petitioner in the instant case, hence there cannot be any discrimination inter-se the similarly situated persons. 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the petition is allowed and order dated 20.08.2016 (Annexure A-1) is quashed and set aside. Petitioner is held entitled to pay scale of Rs. 1600-2925/- w.e.f. 01.01.1994 and Rs. 5480-8925/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 with all consequential benefits. 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the petition is allowed and order dated 20.08.2016 (Annexure A-1) is quashed and set aside. Petitioner is held entitled to pay scale of Rs. 1600-2925/- w.e.f. 01.01.1994 and Rs. 5480-8925/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 with all consequential benefits. The respondents are directed to confer the benefits in terms of this judgment to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date on which the copy of this judgment is produced before respondent No. 2. 11. The petition stands disposed in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.