The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Punjab pattern in determining pay scales and the requirement to consider length of service and similarity of duties in such determinations.

RAJIV SHARMA -

1. Petitioner was appointed as Artist Modeller on 2.06.1966 in the pay scale of Rs.120-10-250/-. He joined his duties on 10.06.1966. The pay scale of Rs.120-250/- was revised w.e.f. 01.02.1968 to Rs.250-25-550/-. On further revision, the pay scale was revised to Rs.620-1200/- w.e.f. 01.01.1978. The petitioner was placed in the pay scale of Rs.1500-2640/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986. In the State of Punjab, 50% of the posts of Artist, Modeller/Artist-cum-Modeller were placed in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500/- and were designated as Senior Modellers as per notification, dated 21.08.1990. The petitioner made a representation for placing him in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500/- on Punjab pattern. Case of the petitioner was strongly recommended by the respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 by referring to the notification, dated 21.08.1990 on 17.03.1997. The same recommendations were reiterated by the Director, Medical Education, Himachal Pradesh vide letter, dated 27.07.2000. The respondent No. 3 has also strongly recommended the case of the petitioner on 05.09.2002. The Director, Medical Education, Himachal Pradesh again recommended the case of the petitioner on 12.09.2002. The Secretary Finance has taken up the matter with the Director, Research & Medical Education, Punjab, Chandigarh on 19.04.2006. The Director, Research and Medical Education, Punjab informed the Principal Secretary (Finance), Government of Himachal Pradesh on 08.05.2006 that the Finance Department has revised the pay scale of the categories of Artist, Modeller and Artist-Cum-Modeller from Rs.620-1200/- to Rs.1500- 2640/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986 by clubbing them and made a provision of placing 50% of the above three categories of posts in the pay scale of vide notification, dated Rs.2000-3500/- 21.08.1990. In the State of Punjab, the posts of Artist, Modeller and Artist-Cum-Modeller were placed in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500/- vide office order, dated 21.10.1992 and they were designated as Senior Modellers.

2. The grievance of the petitioner was not redressed by the respondents. He approached this Court by way of CWP No. 4597 of 2010. The same was disposed of on 25.10.2010. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No. 1 on 03.11.2011.

What emerges from the facts enumerated hereinabove, is that the petitioner was getting the pay scale on Punjab pattern w.e.f. 01.02.1968. The State of Punjab has clubbed the three categories of posts, i.e., Artist, Modeller and Artist-Cum-Modeller. The State of Punjab has granted the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500/- to 50% of posts of Artist, Modeller and Artist-cum-Modeller and they were designated as Senior Modellers. While recommending the case of the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 has mentioned the letter, dated 21.08.1990, issued by the State of Punjab. On the basis of the clarification sought by the Secretary Finance, it was clarified that the Finance Department has revised the pay scale of three categories of posts, i.e., Artist, Modeller and Artist-Cum-Modeller from to w.e.f. 01.01.1986 by Rs.620-1200/- Rs.1500-2640/- clubbing them and has also made a provision of placing 50% posts of these categories in the pay scale of 2000-3500/-. However, the fact of the matter is that despite letter, dated 08.05.2006, case of the petitioner has arbitrarily been rejected vide Annexure P-15 on 03.11.2011.

3. It is not in dispute that the State of Himachal Pradesh follows Punjab Pattern in releasing the pay scales. The petitioner is discharging the same duties which are being discharged by the Artist, Modeller and Artist-Cum-Modeller in the State of Punjab. The nomenclature of the post in the State of Himachal Pradesh is Artist and Artist Modeller and in the State of Punjab, the nomenclature of the post is Artist, Modeller and Artist-Cum-Modeller. The respondents have not denied that the functions and duties discharged by the petitioner vis-a-vis his counter parts in the State of Punjab are the same.

4. Ms. Me