Bhag Chand Sharma vs State Of H.P. & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 17361 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CWP No. 8311 of 2023 Decided on: 02.11.2023

.

Bhag Chand Sharma ........Petitioner Versus

State of H.P. & Ors .......Respondents

Coram

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN SHARMA, JUDGE WHETHER APPROVED FOR REPORTING?

For the petitioner : Mr. Parav Sharma and Ms. Vishali Lakhanpal, Advocates.

For the respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General.

Ranjan Sharma, (Oral)

The petitioner, has filed the instant writ

petition, with the following relief:-

i) "That the respondents may very kindly be directed to grant the pay

scale of Rs. 5480-8925 as is prescribed to the post of Shastri teacher instead of pay scale of Rs.5000-8100 as was granted to him on his initial appointment on 07.07.2001, with all consequential benefits and the arrears

accured thereunder may very kindly be ordered to be released with interest @ 9% per annum, in the interest of justice."

.

2. Case of the petitioner, as submitted by

the learned counsel for the petitioner in brief is,

that he was appointed as Shastri Teacher, as

per Office Order dated 07.07.2001, Annexure P-1,

in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8100+ allowances.

He further submits that though the State

Government r has issued the Himachal Pradesh

Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules on 23.11.1988,

revising the pay scale of the Shastri Teachers

to Rs.1640-2925 and then to Rs. 5480-8925;

with additional benefit of time scales/higher scale

thereon; on completion of 8 years and 18 years

of service yet the State Government had

issued the clarificatory orders on 23.03.1989

and on 17.12.1991; that the pay scale of

Rs.1640-2925/ Rs.5480-8925 was admissible only

to those Shastri teachers, who were working

on regular basis as a personal measure and to

those who were TGT's i.e. who possessed the

qualification of B.Ed.

3. In this background, the learned counsel

.

submits that this Court has adjudicated the issue

and held that the scope, applicability and benefits

accruing under the HPCS (Revised Pay) Rules

of 1988 issued under Article 309 of the

Constitution of India can neither be superseded

therefore dated

these

or restricted nor taken away by way of clarificatory

orders 23.3.1989

clarificatory and

orders 17.12.1991

were quashed and

and set-aside by this Court; in CWP(T) No. 5759

of 2008, decided on 5.7.2010, Annexure P-2,

titled as Subhash Chand & Anr. vs. State of

Himachal Pradesh and others and the judgment

passed by this Court in CWP No.3341 of 2019,

decided on 4.09.2021, Annexure P-3, tilted

as Madan Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh &

Anr. He further submits that the petitioner

deserves similar treatment but the denial of

similar benefits is illegal, arbitrary and is also

violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of

India

4. Per contra, at this stage, Mr. Rajan

.

Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General submits

that since the petitioner was appointed on

07.07.2001, Annexure P-1, therefore, the matter

is required to be examined as to whether the

Shastri Teachers who are appointed on or after

01.01.1996;

    the

    He
            benefit

            further
                    r    of
                             alike

                                the

                             submits

                                         the

                                             pay

                                               that
                                                    petitioners

                                                        scale

                                                           the
                                                                     or    not

                                                                          case
                                                                               were

                                                                                   pay
                                                                                         granted

                                                                                              scale.

                                                                                   file/records

    reveal       that        the        petitioner          has           not     made          any

    representation              to           the         respondents                  ventilating

his claim-grievances till day.

5. Keeping in view the above facts and

circumstances, and the request, so made by

the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court

permits the petitioner to make a detailed representation

to the Respondent No-2-Director of Elementary

Education to the Government of Himachal Pradesh

within three weeks from today; with further

directions to the aforesaid respondent-authority,

that in case, any such representation is made,

the same shall be decided within four weeks thereafter.

6. Needless to say that, this Court has

.

not adverted to the merits of the matter and

all Questions of facts and law, are left open.

The instant writ petition as well as

the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,

shall also, disposed of.

    November 2, 2023
                               to                      (Ranjan Sharma)
                                                            Judge

       (himani)