IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPOA No.556 of 2019 Decided on : 17.10..2025 _________________________________________________P_______

Yoga Singh .…Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

1Whether approved for repor ting? No For the petitioner: Mr. Aditya Chauhan, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Navlesh Verma, Additional Advocate General.

Ranjan Sharma, Judge C Petitioner has come up before this Court seeking the following reliefs: -

“I. That the present O.A may kindly be allowed g and the action of respondents whereby applicant has not been granted scale of Grade ‘A’ Pump Operator be quashed and set aside and may kindly be directed to give the scale with arrears and interest.

II. That the respondents be directed to pay arrears from the 1991 to 1994 since the applicant had completed ten years in March 1991 however the applicant was give work charge status on

31.12.1993.

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

III. That the respondents may be directed to follow the roster and seniority of SC candidates may be drawn separately and appliPcant may be granted benefits for promotion and for grant of scale as per grade-A.

IV. That the period of two year from March 1991 to

31.12.1993 be counte d for pensionary benefits at the time of retirement.”

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. In nutshell, tthe grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner belongs to SC Category and based on the reservation roster and seniority of Scheduled Caste Candidates, the petitioner may be granted promotion and pay scale as is admissible to Grade ‘A’ Pump Operators and also to grant benefit of such promotion for retiral benefits, but despite representation dated 20.11.2006, Annexure A-5, the benefits have not been given. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES RESPONDENTS IN REPLY-AFFIDAVIT:

3. Respondents have filed a Reply-Affidavit, stating therein that the petition has been filed after a lapse of about 16 years and the same suffers from delay and latches. Reply-Affidavit further indicates that petitioner was regularised as Work Charge Pump Operator w.e.f 01.01.1994 in terms of the Policy framed by the Government which was approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya Versus State of H.P and .others, 1994 Supp.(2) SCC 316. Para No.3 of Reply-Affidavit states that there is no Rule to grant Grade ‘A’ Scale to Pump Operators on completion of 10 years of daily wage service. Reply-Affidavit further indicates that there is no Rule entitling a Reserved Category Candidate for higher grade in preference to General Category Candidates. It is further averred that after the revision of pay scales w.e.f 01.01.1996, Three-Tier Pay Structure has been prescribed for Pump Operators in the ratio of 20:30:50, strictly on the basis of seniority in cadre as on 01.01.1996. It is averred that grant of Three Tier Pay H Scale is not a promotion and therefore roster is not applicable, which is followed in the case of promotion to be made as per the R & P Rules. It is submitted that based on seniority, the pay scale of Rs.3120-5160 is to be given to 50% at Entry Cadre, with designation as Junior Technician. The pay scale of Rs.4020-6200 is to be given to 30% incumbents with designation as Technicians Grade-II and the pay scale of Rs.4550-7220 is to be given to remaining

20% with designation as Technician Grade-1..

3(i). Reply-Affidavit further indicates that the petitioner has been granted the pay scale of Junior Technician of Rs.3120-5160 w.e.f 01.01.1996 and was subsequently granted the next higher pay scale of Rs.4020-6200 as Technician Grade-II (Pump Operator) w.e.f. 01.01.2002 in terms of the order issued by Superintending Engineer, I & PH Circle [now Jal Shakti Vibhag], Una, on 29.06.2006. Reply-Affidavit further indicates that seniority of the petitioner is much below in the Seniority List, so as to entitle him for the pay scale of Rs.4550-7220 as Technician Grade-1 H (Pu