Himachal Pradesh High Court · 2009

The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioners: M/s R.M. Bisht & Rajesh Mandhotra Deputy Advocate Generals. For respondent No.1: Ms.Madhu Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No.2: Mr.Ravinder Thakur, Central Government Counsel. Per V.K. Ahuja, J.: This is a Civil Writ Petition filed by the petitioners/State of H.P. under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders passed by the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, dated 30.3.2006. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent No.1 filed an Original Application before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 alleging therein that he joined the services as Secretary Gram Panchayat in the year 1959 and _________________________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - worked as such upto 1975-76 and thereafter he worked as Secretary in Panchayat Smiti. It was alleged that present respondent No.1 was promoted as Sub Inspector (Panchayat) by the Director, Panchayati Raj and he joined as such on

4.12.1998. The services of Secretary Gram Panchayat were regularized by the Government of Himachal Pradesh w.e.f. June 1984 and respondent No.1, who had been working as Panchayat Secretary and then as Sub Inspector, was not granted the benefit of past services rendered by him for the purpose of pension etc. Hence the Original Application filed by respondent No.1 before the Tribunal for the grant of relief. The learned Tribunal, after taking reply from the petitioners/State allowed the said Application vide its impugned order. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The submissions made by the learned Deputy Advocate General for the petitioners were that respondent No.1 was not entitled to the benefit of services rendered by him under the Panchayat Smiti and no decision had been taken by the Government that these services will be counted towards pension and gratuity and as such, responder No.1 was not entitled to the relief claimed by him.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 had submitted that the employees like respondent No.1 had been absorbed in various departments and they have been given the benefit of past services rendered by them under the Panchayat Smitis and as such - 3 - respondent No.1 was rightly held entitled to the benefit of past services rendered by him. Our attention has been drawn to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court passed in CWP No.1802 of 2002, titled State of H.P. and others versus Basheshar Lal, decided on 31.7.2008, wherein also the respondent had joined the services as Panchayat Secretary under the control of the Panchayat Smiti. The services of all the employees had been taken over by the State Government and some of the employees were absorbed in Rural Development Department while others were absorbed in Panchayat Department. The question before the Division Bench was that once the benefit of past services has been granted to such Panchayat Secretaries who have been absorbed in the Rural Department, whether the benefit of past services rendered by the Panchayat Secretaries who have been absorbed in the Panchayat Department can be denied to them or not.

It was held by the said Division Bench that once the benefit of the past services have been given by one wing of the State of H.P. i.e. Rural Development Department, this benefit cannot be denied by another wing of the State of H.P. i.e. Panchayat Department. Accordingly, the decision of the Tribunal granting benefit of past service was upheld by this Court. The aforesaid decision clearly applies to the present facts as the facts are similar and the petitioner had also been absorbed in the Panchayat Department but no benefit of past service had been granted to him. The findings recorded by the Tribunal do not call - 4 - for an interference by this Court keeping in view the previous decision on similar facts, as mentioned above, and as such, there is no merit in the petition filed by the petitioners, which is dismissed accordingly, with no order as to costs. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. (V.K. Ahuja), Judge. August 19, 2009. (TILAK)