Er. M.K. Guliani vs State of H.P. and Another

Surjit Singh, J.—Heard and gone through the record.

In the year 1998, when notification of Rules, pertaining to revision of pay-scales, effective from 1st January, 1996, was issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh, Petitioner was working as Superintending Engineer, while two persons Shri S.K. Malhotra and Shri D.R. Gupta, named in the present petition, were working as Executive Engineers. Petitioner''s pay, as Superintending Engineer, was fixed at Rs. 15,100/-, as on 1st January, 1996, vide Annexure A-1. His pay in the pre-revised pay-scale or existing pay-scale was Rs. 5,600/-, on the aforesaid date. The pre-revised pay-scale was Rs. 4,500-6,100. His pay was fixed at Rs. 15,100/-, by giving him benefit of two increments, on account of bunching. In the case of Shri S.K. Malhotra, above named, his existing pay-scale was Rs. 3,700-5,300 and his pay in that scale was Rs. 5,150/-, as on 1st January, 1996. His pay was, however, fixed at Rs. 15,900/-. He was given the benefit of four increments, by following the rule of bunching. Because of this, pay of Shri S.K. Malhotra got fixed at a stage higher than that of the Petitioner. Admittedly, he was junior to the Petitioner and his pay in the existing pay-scale was also lower than that of the Petitioner and that too in a lower pay-scale. Similarly, Shri D.R. Gupta, Executive Engineer, was also in the existing pay-scale of Rs. 3,700-5,300, with basic pay at Rs. 5,300/-. His pay was also fixed at Rs. 15,900/-.

Petitioner sought parity in the fixation of pay with the aforesaid two Executive Engineers, alleging that he being senior to them and also his pay being higher than Shri S.K. Malhotra, in the existing pay-scale and that too in a higher pay-scale, his pay should have been fixed at least at the same stage as that of Shri S.K. Malhotra and Shri D.R. Gupta, if not higher. He filed Original Application before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, seeking the aforesaid relief.

Respondents, in their reply, took the stand that pay of Shri S.K. Malhotra and Shri D.R. Gupta, above named, had been wrongly fixed and that when the mistake came to their notice, they re-fixed their pay, vide Annexures R-1 and R-2, at Rs. 15,100/-, as on 1st January, 1996 and, therefore, grievance, if any, of the Petitioner comes to an end.

Rejoinder was filed by the Petitioner, in which it was stated that though as on 1st January, 1996, the pay of the above named two Executive Engineers had been brought down to the level of the pay of the Petitioner, vide Annexures R-1 and R-2, yet w.e.f. 1st January, 1998 their pay had been fixed at Rs. 16,800/-, whereas the pay of the Petitioner on 1st January, 1998 was Rs. 15,900/- and, thus, from 1st January, 1998, pay of the Petitioner is at a level lower than that of the above named two persons.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record as also the Pay Revision Rules of 1998, by which pay-scales were revised, w.e.f. 1st January, 1996, though copy of such Rules is not available on the record of the present case.

Pay of the Petitioner has rightly been fixed, as per Pay Revision Rules. In the case of Shri S.K. Malhotra and Shri D.R. Gupta, their pay had not been correctly fixed and, therefore, revised pay-fixation orders Annexure R-1 and R-2 were issued. Their pay was fixed at Rs. 15,100/-. This figure was equal to the figure at which Petitioner''s pay was fixed vide Annexure A-1.

It is true that with effect from 1st January, 1998, pay of Shri S.K. Malhotra and Shri D.R. Gupta has been higher than that of the Petitioner. Petitioner''s pay as on 1st January, 1998 is Rs. 15,900, per pay-fixation order Annexure A-1, while that of Shri S.K. Malhotra and Shri D.R. Gupta, it is Rs. 16,800/-, as per their revised pay-revision orders Annexures R-1 and R-2, but it is not on account of fixation under the Pay Revision Rules. The reason is that the above named two persons having been promoted as Superintending Engineers, subsequent to 1st January, 1996, their pay has been fixed as per Rule-22, in terms of which they were given the benefit of one increment in the lower pay-scale and one increment in the higher pay-scale of the post of Superintending Engineer.

May be that the Petitioner is entitled to step-up of his pay, on account of his above named juniors having been fixed at a stage of pay higher than his stage of pay, because of the applicability of certain orders issued by the Government, under FR 22, but in the present case, Petitioner is seeking parity in pay with the above named two persons, junior to him, on the premise that his pay has been fixed at a stage lower than the stage of the above named two persons junior to him, under the Pay Revision Rules. For seeking parity, in the matter of pay, with the aforesaid two persons, junior to him, the Petitioner would be better advised to make representation to the concerned authorities, for stepping up his pay, in accordance with relevant orders/ instructions, issued from time to time, under FR 22. In case he makes such a representation, the same shall be disposed of by the concerned authorities, within two months.

Writ petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.