RAJINDER SHARMA Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY FINANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have prayed for quashing of office order dated 18.8.2001 with further prayer that respondents may be directed to allow the petitioners to continue on the basis of earlier promotion order issued on 21.9.1999. THE prayer has also been made that petitioners may be allowed the protection of their pay as Junior Assistants under F.R. 27 or as a measure personal to them. THE further case of the petitioners is that they have filed the petition against the order dated 18.8.2001 whereby the promotion of the petitioners as Junior Assistants in the pay scale of ' 4400 -7000 ordered earlier vide office order dated 21.9.1999 has been withdrawn/cancelled wrongly, arbitrarily, unconstitutionally and illegally by ordering placement under 50 : 50 percent by the respondent No.2 as Junior Assistant in the pay scale of ' 4400 -7000 which has reduced the pay of the petitioners by one increment all of a sudden without assigning any reason and following principles of natural justice and calling for options from the petitioners.

(2.) THE petition has been contested by the respondents by filing reply wherein it has been stated that the petitioners were placed Junior Assistants in the pay scale of ' 4400 ? 7000 vide order dated 18.8.2001. This placement was ordered in pursuance of H.P.Govt. Notification dated 31.5.2001 whereby the Pay Revision Rules, 1998 were amended to the extent that cadre of Clerks shall be bifurcated into the posts of Clerks in the pay scale of ' 3120-5160 (with initial start of ' 3220/-) and Junior Assistants in the pay scale of ' 4400 ? 7000 in the ratio of 50 : 50. As per amended rules, the posts of Junior Assistants were to be filled up by placement to the extent of 100% out of Clerks who have an experience of working as such for a minimum period of five years in the cadre of Department. THE amended pay revision rules were made applicable w.e.f. 1.1.1996. THE contention of the petitioners that the impugned orders are arbitrary, unconstitutional and illegal is wrong. THE amendment had effected the category of Junior Assistants who were allowed the benefit of F.R.22.1(a) (i) as their promotion as Junior Assistant was as per pay revision rules 1998. THE Government was alive to this issue and accordingly Government had decided to waive off the recoveries of such Junior Assistants as per notification dated 3.11.2001. THE amendment in the pay revision rules was made effective w.e.f. 1.1.1996 as such their pay had rightly been fixed on their placement as Junior Assistants as per amended pay revision rules. THEre is no provision in F.R. 27 to protect the pay in such cases.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Division Bench judgment in Narain Singh's (supra) is more nearer to the facts of the present case. THE Division Bench in that case has held as follows:-