Dev Darshan Sud, J.@mdashThe petitioner prays for the following reliefs in this petition:
That the respondents may be ordered to grant pay scale of Rs. 3120-6200/- to the petitioner w.e.f. the date he was appointed as Cook with all the benefits incidental thereof such as full back wages, seniority and pay fixation etc.
The case of the petitioner is that he was regularized as Cook w.e.f. 11.1.2007 in the pay scale of Rs. 2620-4140 but this scale was not admissible since Cook is a Class-III post and he is entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 3120-6200 at par with Class-III staff. The case of the petitioner then proceeds that this Court by an order passed in CWP(T) No. 14846 of 2008 titled Ram Kumar and others Vs. State H.P. & Ors. decided on July 9, 2009 and in CWP. No. 3711 of 2009 titled Santi Saroop Sharma and another Vs. State of H.P. and others has granted the same relief to the petitioner therein as was prayed for by the petitioner herein.
2. The writ petition is resisted by the State on a number of grounds including the fact that Shanti Saroop''s case has been challenged in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has since disposed of the petition to the following order:
Delay condoned.
These petitions are directed against orders dated 29.12.2010 and 30.11.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondents was allowed in terms of order dated 24.4.2009 passed in CWP(T) No. 3420 of 2008 and the petition filed for review of the first order was dismissed.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners for some time and carefully gone through the order passed in CWP(T) No. 3420 of 2008.
In our view, the detailed reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge for directing the petitioners to pay salary in the scale of Rs. 3120-6200 which is prescribed for the Cooks employed in other departments are legally correct and the orders under challenge do not call for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed.
It is undisputed before me that the petitioner herein is also entitled to the same benefits as have been granted to Sh. Shanti Sawroop in whose favour the judgment of this Court has been upheld by the Supreme Court. This writ petition is therefore allowed. It is directed that this case is governed by the decision of the Supreme Court passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 24455-24456 of 2011. No order as to costs.
