PARKASH CHAND Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners have prayed mainly the following reliefs:

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the Petitioners were appointed as Masons with the Respondent -Department on work -charged basis w.e.f. 1.1.1994 in Circle Dharamshala. Their services were regularised on 19.6.2001. Gurla Ram, Duni Chand, Kirlu Ram, Roshan Lal, Prabhat Chand etc. were also appointed on 1.1.1994 the date on which the Petitioners were appointed. However, excluding petitioners, Gurla Ram etc. have been granted the pay scale of Rs. 4020 -6200. The Petitioners have submitted that initially all of them were granted the pay scale of Rs. 950/ - which was revised to Rs. 1050/ - and then to Rs. 3120 - 5160. On 29.7.2002 vide office order Annexure A -1, Pahar Singh, Kehar Singh, Gurla Ram, Duni Chand, Kirlu Ram, Roshan Lal and Prabhat Singh were granted Grade -II 30% scale i.e. Rs. 4020 - 6200 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 with designation as Junior Technician (Mason). The Petitioners submitted objections against office order dated 29.7.2002 for not granting them the same scale but the objections of the Petitioners have not been decided.

(3.) IT has been alleged that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, the benefit of pay scale of Rs. 4520 -7220 in Grade I and Rs. 4020 - 6200 in Grade -II has been wrongly withheld from the petitioners. It has not been appreciated that the persons to whom these grades have been allowed have joined on the same date when the Petitioners alongwith their counterparts were appointed in the Respondent -Department. The Respondents have not taken into consideration the doctrine of promissory estoppel and well known principle of legitimate expectation. The Respondents have not applied their mind properly to the case of the petitioners. The Petitioners and their counterparts were initially put in the same scale of Rs. 950/ - which was revised to Rs. 3120/ - lateron. They were drawing the same scale but the Respondents vide office order dated 29.7.2002 Annexure A -1 without any justification withheld the grades from Petitioners which were given to their counterparts. It is the case of the Petitioners that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.