Rajiv Sharma, J. - (1.) On the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee held in the year 1985, 16 H.P.H.S. Grade (1) doctors, including petitioner were promoted in the pay scale of 1400-2000 with effect from the date of taking over of charge against number of available vacancies vide letter dated 30.4.1985. Respondent-State vide notification dated 25.5.1988 on the basis of recommendations of the review Departmental Promotion Committee was pleased to promote 21 doctors, including petitioner as Specialist Grade (General) from the date shown against each name. Petitioner is at Sr. No. 15. State Government vide letter dated 27.12.1988 decided to re-fix the salary of one of the incumbents, who was promoted with the petitioner, i.e. Dr. P.P. Vaidya. This letter is quoted in the judgment rendered in O.A. (M) No. 475/1995 dated 10.11.2000. However, the re-fixation in favour of P.P. Vaidya and R.S. Chandel was withdrawn on 2.7.1993. Dr. P.P. Vaidya approached the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. (M) No. 475/1995. The same was accepted on 10.11.2000. Similarly, placed Dr. R.S. Chandel’s petition bearing O.A. (M) No. 477/1995 was also accepted on the basis of ratio of judgment rendered in O.A. (M) No. 475/1995 on 11.7.2001. Petitioner also made representation that he being similarly situate should be given the benefits at par with Dr. P.P. Vaidya and Dr. R.S. Chandel since he had also been promoted as Specialist Grade (General). The representation made by the petitioner was rejected on 20.5.2002. It is in these circumstances, the present petition has been filed.
(2.) Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned Senior Advocate has strenuously argued that his client was also entitled to re-fixation of pay at par with Dr. P.P. Vaidya and Dr. R.S. Chandel. He has referred to the judgment pronounced by the Tribunal in O.A.(M) No. 475/1995 and O.A. (M) No. 577/1995 decided on 10.11.2000 and 11.7.2001, respectively. According to him, the judgment was in rem and not in personam since the question of law was decided in these petitions.
(3.) Mr. Vikas Rathore has vehemently argued that since the petitioner was working as Grade-I Doctor and on promotion as Surgical Specialist, the scale remained the same, thus, there is no question of refixation of his salary.;