Dr. Suman Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 27 Dec 2011
- Bench
- SANJAY KAROL
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, the petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. December 27 , 2011 (PK) (Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge.
Judgment
The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. A.G. with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the respondents- State. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) According to learned counsel for the petitioner matter in issue is squarely covered by the decisions rendered by this Court in CWP(T) No. 16700 of 2008, titled as K. C. Sood and others versus Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 State of H.P. and another, decided on 2.12.2011 and CWP(T) No. 7821 of 2008, titled as Ms. Prem Lata Thapar versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 27.7.2011, copies of which are taken on record.
Having perused the record I find that facts are almost similar. In the instant case also petitioner was serving at Goswami Ganesh Dutt Sanatan Dharam College Baijnath at Baijnath. College was taken over by the Government of Himachal Pradesh in terms of notification dated 8.2.2007 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner was to be given minimum pay scale by treating him to be a new appointee.
In terms of order dated 27.7.2010 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, though the petitioner(cid:146)s pay was protected but not the pay scale which he was otherwise claiming, in accordance with law.
Operative part
In K. C. Sood (supra) by following Prem Lata (supra) the Court has issued the following directions:- (cid:147)2. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to fix the pay of the petitioners at the time of taking over of the college in which pay scale they were drawing salary at the time of taking over of the college and their services. Of course, they will be given the benefit of revision of pay scales, which have taken place subsequent to the taking over of the college and their pay in the revised scales of pay shall be re- fixed, in accordance with the rules and notification of pay revisions. They will also be given all consequential monetary benefits of salary and allowances as also pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits. Order be complied with within a period of three months from today. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (cid:148) 3
As such, facts being similar, directions issued in the aforesaid decisions shall mutatis mutandis apply to the instant case also. All consequential action shall positively be taken by the competent authority within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of certified copy of the judgment. Monetary benefits, due and admissible, be also released within the aforesaid period, failing which, then thereafter, petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 6% p.a. which shall be personally recovered from the erring official(s).
Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. December 27 , 2011 (PK) (Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Himachal Pradesh High Court, on 27 Dec 2011. The bench was SANJAY KAROL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.