IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No. 2638 of 2019 Reserved on: 07.01.2023 Decided on: 13.01.2023 __________________________________________________________ Budhi Singh …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents __________________________________________________________

Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge

1 Whether approved for reporting? No ______________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Y. K. Thakur, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Manoj Chauhan and Mr.

Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate Generals.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for grant of following substantive reliefs:

“i) That the writ or order may please be issued to respondents No. 1 to 3 to pay pre-revise pay scale of Rs.400 -600 to petitioner w.e.f. his initial appointment, i.e. 28.1.1989 and may also be held that the petitioner is similarly situated at par with the other cooks serving and posted in other various Govt. departments viz., Police, Health, Home Guards, Fire, HP Tourism, IGMC, H.P.

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Medical Sciences, HIPA, Governor House, etc. discharging and performing the similar duties and sharing the same responsibilities.

ii) That declaration to the effect that the notification of pre-revise pay scale from Rs.300-430 to 400-600 w.e.f. 01.03.1980, which has made in consultation and approval of the Finance Department of Govt. of H.P. is applicable as per Annexure P-5, in case of petitioner, being right of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

2. The petitioner was appointed as Cook in the Department of Agriculture vide office order dated 28.01.1989 in the pay scale of Rs.300 – 430, petitioner was confirmed on the same post on 16.7.1996.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite his entitlement to parity in pay scale with other similarly situated persons in the employment of State Government, he has been denied his eligible dues. The petitioner represented his case to the respondents for the first time on 3.1.2007 and thereafter on 17.3.2007. Having received no response from the respondents, petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No.3698 of 2009, which was decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 6.3.2013 in the following terms:

“2. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the issue in this writ petition is covered in favour of the petitioner by the judgment of this Court in CWP No. 171 of 2004 titled State of Himachal Pradesh and another versus Chet Ram and others, decided on 17th November, 2005.

3. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner and take appropriate action in accordance with law and also in the light of the decision, referred to above, in case the judgment has attained finality and in case the petitioner is similarly situated, within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment alongwith a copy of the writ petition and a copy of the judgment referred to above by the petitioner before the second respondent.”

4. Respondent No.2 vide communication dated 6.7.2013, Annexure P-1, rejected the case of petitioner by holding that his case was not similar to the facts of the case in CWP No. 171 of 2004, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Chet Ram and others. The above conclusion was drawn on the premise that the post of Cook in the department of Agriculture was Class-IV post in the pay scale of Rs.300 – 430 and as per the R & P Rules, the essential qualification was “Primary pass”, whereas in the Department of Director of HIPA, essential requirement was to possess Diploma from Food Craft Institute or equivalent qualification.

5. Aggrieved against the aforesaid rejection order, petitioner has approached this Court on the grounds that the issue is no more res integra in light of the judgments passed by this Court in CWP No.17