Nika Ram vs Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation

Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J.—Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not granting him the pay scale of Rs.3120-5160 w.e.f. 10.7.1996 on the date when the petitioner joined as a Carpenter with the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in CWP No.707 of 2001 titled Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation vs. Dayal Singh, decided on 5.4.2007. In Dayal Singh''s case, the Corporation had challenged the decision of the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, dated 20.10.2000 passed in O.A. No. 1638 of 1990, accepting the claim of the petitioner therein (Dayal Singh), who was the respondent in the writ petition granting him the pay scale which is also the subject matter of the present writ petition. This Court, after a detailed consideration, has held that there was no reason to deny the upgraded pay scale to Sh. Dayal Singh since this pay scale has been granted to all the Carpenters. The factual Matrix is no different in this case. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner joined on 10.7.1996 and that the upgraded pay scale was not allowed to the petitioner for the reason that the pay scale of the petitioner was revised by the Service Committee and made applicable w.e.f. 1.7.1999 which is accepted and he is not entitled to any relief.

In view of the decision in Dayal Singh (supra), the pay scale of Rs.3120-5160 is allowed from 10.7.1996 i.e. on the petitioner having joined service as Carpenter on 10.7.1996, whereas this petition is allowed with the direction that it shall abide by the decision in CWP No.707 of 2001 titled as Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation vs. Dayal Singh. The petitioner shall also be granted all the consequential benefits. The Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation to comply with the order dutifully in letter and spirit. The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. All interim orders stand vacated.