http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SH. N.K.SHARMA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       01/05/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, SUJATA V. MANOHAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                   THE 1ST DAY OF MAY, 1996 Present:                Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.Ramaswamy                Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sujata V.Manohar Mrs. Chandan Ramamurthi, Adv. for the appellant B.Datta, Sr.Adv.  and S.B.Upadhyay,  Adv. with  him for  the Respondents                          O R D E R      The following Order of the Court was delivered:      This appeal  by special  leave arises against the order of the  High Court  of Himachal Pradesh made on 9.12.1994 in C.W.P.No.435/92.  The appellant was initially appointed as a Store Munshi  on 4.10.71  in the work-charged establishment. Later ,  he had  two promotions,  last of  them being  Store Keeper in the regular cadre on December 31, 1980 in the pay- scale of  Rs. 260-430/-  w.e.f.  1.1.1981.    He  was  later promoted  on   1.1.1986  in  the  grade  of  Rs.  330-560/-. Subsequently, by  virtue of  negotiation with the Union, the pay-scale and  the promotional  avenues of  the work charged employees, who  could not  get promotion,  were rationalised and  by   modified  scheme  dated  September  5,  1988,  the respondents  had  adopted  rationalisation  scheme  and  the scales of  pay.   Para (b)  of  the  scheme  envisages  that although appointment  to the regular cadre will be effective from the date of such appointment, service rendered from the date of  such appointment,  service rendered in work charged posts in  the same  post and scale of pay will count towards inter-se seniority  in the  regular cadre for the purpose of promotion to  next higher  scale of  pay subject  to line of promotion being available.      It is  not in  dispute that  the appellant  earlier was promoted on selection and became a regular employee.  Though the work  charged employees who could not become the regular employees  have   the  benefit   of  rationalisation  scheme referred to hereinbefore, since the appellant was in a lower scale of  pay in  the work-charged  establishment  than  was mentioned in the rationalisation scheme, he cannot claim the higher scale  of pay  or promotional  post on  par with  his erstwhile juniors/workcharged  employees.   The High  Court, therefore, has rightly pointed out that though the appellant

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

is entitled  to count  his service  rendered as  workcharged employee for  the purpose of seniority and promotion, as far as the  grade seniority is concerned, he cannot get the same benefit as he was appointed in the grade of Rs. 260-350/- on September 1,  1973 and  regularised w.e.f.  1.1.1981 in  the scale of  Rs. 260-430/-  which is  lower pay-scale than what was rationalised.  Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the High Court.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.