1. The material facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Basic Teacher (for short ‘JBT’) on adhoc basis w.e.f. 15.03.1990. He continued on the post of JBT till 1998. On 24.07.1998, petitioner was appointed as Shastri Teacher in the pay scale of Rs.5000 – 8100. The scale allowed by the respondents to other Shastri Teachers w.e.f. 01.01.1996 was Rs.5480 – 8925. This Court in CWP(T) No.5759/2008 titled Subhash Chand and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, vide judgment dated 5.7.2010 had held that the Shastri Teachers entitled to pay scale of Rs.5480-8925 w.e.f. 01.01.1996. The petitioner represented to the respondents against discrimination in the grant of pay scale to him. The representation of the petitioner remained undecided, forcing the petitioner to file CWP No.6974/2012 in this Court, which was disposed of on 24.08.2012 with directions to the respondents to grant same benefit to the petitioner which was granted to the similarly situated persons. The respondents allowed the pay scale of Rs.5480-8925 to the petitioner and re-fixed his pay vide order dated 30.08.2012 (Annexure P-6). However, vide order dated 23.04.2014 (Annexure P-7), the pay of petitioner was again re-fixed in the pay scale of Rs.5000 – 8100. Accordingly, recoveries were ordered.

2. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

“It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the averments made hereinabove, the present writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order Annexure P-7, the copy of which has been made available to the petitioner on 5th May, 2014, may kindly be quashed and set-aside by declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, being contrary to the principles of natural justice and against the provisions of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and in the interest of justice with the directions to the respondents not to make any recovery from the salary of the petitioner and to pay him the grade pay of Rs.3800/- to the petitioner, which till date has not been paid to the petitioner in spite of passing an order in this regard, which has been already paid to his counterparts and colleagues in order to maintain the uniformity. That the respondents may also be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner as also other persons to whom this scale has been allowed from the first day of their appointment as also that of Sh. Subhash Sharma and others and Sh. Teka Ram and others, who approached this Hon’ble Court and in whose cases the detailed and exhaustive directions have been passed by this Hon’ble Court.”

3. In response, it has been submitted that the case of petitioner was different than the facts of the case in CWP(T) NO. 5759/2008 titled Subhash Chand and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others decided by this Court. In support of such contention, it is submitted that petitioner was allowed pay scale of Rs.5000 – 8100 at the time of his appointment as Shastri Teacher in the year 1998, whereas, the petitioners’ in CWP(T) No. 5759/2008 were allowed pay scale of Rs.5480-8925 in the first instance and reduced subsequently to Rs.5000 – 8100. It has also been submitted that the pay of petitioner was re-fixed in the scale of Rs.5480- 8925 by the Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Shimla wrongly vide office order dated 30.05.2013. However, the same was rectified when the service book of the petitioner was re-examined and it was found that his case was not similar to that of petitioners’ in CWP(T) No. 5759/2008.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.

5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as JBT in the year 1990 and worked as such till 1998. He was appointed as Shastri Teacher in 1998.

6. A Division Bench of this Court had passed the following order on 24.08.2012 in CWP No. 6974 of 2012 filed by the petitioner:

“The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:

“i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the pay scale of Rs.5480-8925/-instead of 5000-8100, from the first day of his appointment as has been allowed to other counter-parts with further revision from time to time alongwith its arrears with interest @ 12% per annum.”

2. According to the petitioner, the issue is covered in his favour by the judgment of this Court rendered in CWP(T) No.5759 of 2008, titled Subhash Chand and another versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others and that judgment has become final. The judgment has been implemented also. If that be so, and in case the petitioner is similarly situated as the petitioners in the judgment referred to above, similar treatment shall be extended to the petitioner herein also within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment alongwith a copy of the writ petition as well as the above referred judgment, by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent.

3. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of so also the pending application(s), if any.”

7. The question for determination is whether the case of petitioner was covered with the judgment dated 05.07.2010 passed by this Court in CWP(T) No. 5759/2008 titled Subhash Chand and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others

8. Perusal of judgment dated 05.07.2010 passed by this Court in CWP(T) NO. 5759/2008 reveals that petitioners therein were appointed as Language Teachers in 1988 in the pay scale of Rs.480-620 and were subsequently placed in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2925. After revision of the pay scales, petitioners in CWP(T) No. 5759/2008 were granted pay scale of Rs.5480-8925 w.e.f. 01.01.1996. They were regularised in the year 1999 and on such regularization, their pay scale was reduced to 5000-8100. This Court while passing aforesaid judgment had taken notice of notification dated 23.3.1989 whereby the pay scale of Shastris/Language Teachers was prescribed as Rs.1650-2925 and which was subsequently revised to Rs.5480-8925 w.e.f. 01.01.1996. In the said case, the claim of petitioners therein was contested on the ground that the pay scale granted to Language Teachers/Shastris vide notification dated 23.3.1989, was applicable/admissible only to Trained Graduate Teachers, as was clarified by the Government vide communication dated 21.12.1989. The contention so raised on behalf of respondents in CWP(T) No. 5759/2008 was rejected on the premise that administrative instructions could not supersede the statutory rules. Thus, the communication dated 21.12.1989 was held not sufficient to supersede the rules, which fixed the pay scale of Shastris/ Language Teachers at Rs.5480-8925.

9. Once this Court had held the clarification issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of H.P. dated 21.12.1989 to be nonest, the petitioner having been appointed as Shastri Teacher was entitled to the scale of Rs.5480-8925, which was held to be the scale allowed to Shastris/Language Teachers vide judgment dated 5.7.2010 passed by this Court in CWP(T) No. 5759/2008.

10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the distinction drawn by the respondents in the case of petitioner with that of the petitioners in CWP(T) No. 5759/2008, has no legal basis. Further, once the respondents had granted the requisite pay scale of Rs.5480-8925 to the petitioner vide Annexure P-6, its review after two years vide Annexure P-7, was also illegal and could not be sustained. No reasons whatsoever were stated in Annexure P-7 while reviewing the Annexure P-6. Noticeably, order Annexure P-6 was passed in pursuance to the orders Annexure P-5 passed by a Division Bench of this Court.

11. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed and order dated 23.04.2014, Annexure P-7, is quashed and set-aside. The amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner in pursuance to order Annexure P-7, shall be refunded to him within eight weeks from the date of passing of this judgment.

12. The petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.