✦ High Court of India · 13 Aug 2012

P.O. Kumarhatti, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. vs State of Himachal Pradesh, through Secretary (Technical

Case Details High Court of India · 13 Aug 2012

Court

High Court of India

Decided

13 Aug 2012

Bench

Technical Education. Learned Single

Length

2,288 words

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India

Judgment

Sees Ram, son of Shri Basti Ram, Resident of Village Kanadhayala, P.O. Kumarhatti, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. Versus (cid:133). Petitioner.

3. State of Himachal Pradesh, through Secretary (Technical Education), Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2. The Director (Technical Education), Shimla. Himachal Pradesh, Principal, Government Polytechnic College Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. for Women, (cid:133)..Respondents. CWP No. 8836 of 2011-D Desh Raj Thakur, son of Shri S.S. Thakur, Resident of Village Ghalai, P.O. and Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. Versus (cid:133). Petitioner.

3. State of Himachal Pradesh, through Secretary (Technical Education), Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2. The Director (Technical Education), Shimla. Himachal Pradesh, Principal, Government Polytechnic College Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. for Women, (cid:133)..Respondents. CWP No. 8837 of 2011-D Ashok Kumar, son of Shri Lekh Ram, Resident of Village Chhatiyudi, P.O. Rampur, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. (cid:133). Petitioner. Versus

3. State of Himachal Pradesh, through Secretary (Technical Education), Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2. The Director (Technical Education), Shimla. Himachal Pradesh, Principal, Govt. Polytechnic College, Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. (cid:133)..Respondents. CWP No. 8841 of 2011-E Mohinder Kumar, son of Shri Saij Ram, Resident of Village Jakholi, P.O. Batal, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P. (cid:133). Petitioner. Versus

3. State of Himachal Pradesh, through Secretary (Technical Education), Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2. The Director (Technical Education), Shimla. Himachal Pradesh, Principal, Govt. Polytechnic for Women, Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. (cid:133)..Respondents. 4 CWP No. 9077 of 2011-H Rameshwar, son of Shri Bharat Ram, Resident of Village Dali, P.O. and Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. (cid:133). Petitioner. Versus

3. State of Himachal Pradesh, through Secretary (Technical Education), Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2. The Director (Technical Education), Shimla. Himachal Pradesh, Principal, Govt. Polytechnic College for Women, Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. (cid:133)..Respondents. CWP No. 9078 of 2011-H Daya Ram, son of Shri Duni Chand, Resident of Village Sheel, P.O. Deothi, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. (cid:133). Petitioner. Versus

3. State of Himachal Pradesh, through Secretary (Technical Education), Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2. The Director (Technical Education), Shimla. Himachal Pradesh, Principal, Government Polytechnic College Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. for Women, (cid:133)..Respondents. CWP No. 9081 of 2011-I Bhagat Ram, son of Shri Kamla Ram, Resident of Village Badwari, P.O. Chambi, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. (cid:133). Petitioner. Versus

3. State of Himachal Pradesh, through Secretary (Technical Education), Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2. The Director (Technical Education), Shimla. Himachal Pradesh, Principal, Govt. Polytechnic College, Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. (cid:133)..Respondents. CWP No. 9082 of 2011-I Desh Raj, son of late Shri Hari Ram, Resident of Village Mandal, P.O. Daulatpur, Tehsil and District Kangra, H.P. (cid:133). Petitioner. Versus

3. State of Himachal Pradesh, through Secretary (Technical Education), Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2. The Director (Technical Education), Shimla. Himachal Pradesh, Principal, Industrial Training Institute, Solan, District Solan, H.P. (cid:133)..Respondents. Civil Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Coram: The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) In these petitions issues are identical. In fact, prayer in all these petitions is identical. Prayer made in one such petition (CWP No.8827 of 2011, titled as Govind Ram versus State of H.P. and others) reads as under:- (cid:147)(i) The respondents may kindly be directed to pay allowances at the rate of regularly appointed employees with effect from the date of his initial appointment. (ii) The respondents may further be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner as Mali or against the post of Peon/Chowkidar/Lab. Assistant from the date when the petitioner had completed continuous 8 years of regular service with all consequential benefits. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 7 (iii) The action of respondents in re-engaging/treating the petitioner on contract basis w.e.f. 1.12.2008 may kindly be treated as wrong, illegal, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.(cid:148)

2. The respondents in their reply have admitted that the instant petitioners are similarly situated to the petitioners who had earlier approached the Erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal and with respect to whom, this Court has passed the following judgment dated 24th August, 2010 in CWP(T) No.14148/2008 titled as Shri Dalip Kumar versus State of H.P. and others:- (cid:147)Petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- (cid:147)(i) That the order dated 17.6.2006 contained in Annexure A-9 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the Respondents may be directed to release the allowances on the pay of the Applicant as per his appointment order from the date he has completed one year of service i.e. from 29.7.2003. (ii) That the Respondents may further be directed to release the arrear of allowances to the Applicant from

29.7.2003 with interest @ 12% per annum.(cid:148)

2. There is no dispute that the petitioner(cid:146)s terms of appointment are governed in terms of office order dated

25.7.2002 relevant portion of which reads as under:- (cid:147)On the basis of recommendations made by the Selection Committee, it is proposed to engage Shri Dalip Kumar son of Shri Sadhu Ram, House No. 366/11, Mohalla Thanera, Mandi against the post of Lab. Attendant at Govt. Polytechnic College, Rohru, Distt. Shimla on the pay of Rs. 2620/- (consolidated). His/her work and conduct will be observed for one 8 year from the date of joining and in case no staff is received from the Surplus Pool and his/her work and conduct is found satisfactory, he/she will get the allowances at the rates admissible to other employees of his Category.(cid:148)

3. Annexure A-9 is the order passed by the respondents relevant portion of which reads as under:- (cid:147)I also went through other records available regarding such appointments. It revealed that Director, Technical Education vide its office order No. 134 dated 04.02.2002 affirms that those employees who have been appointed w.e.f. 01.02.2002 will be entitled to consolidated salary of Rs. 2620/- only. On further scrutiny of record it transpired that these appointments alongwith others have been found irregular by the Departmental Inquiry Committee constituted by the Department on the receipt of communication from the Department of Personnel, Govt. of Himachal Pradesh to find out illegal/irregular appointments made between March, 1998 to February, 2003 and the findings of enquiry already stand submitted to the Department of Technical Education and Department of Personnel vide No. Per(AP.B)E(3)- 1/2005, dated 03.12.2005 vide this Directorate letter No. STV(TE)H- B(2)10/2003-Vol.V-12719,

18.5.2006 respectively. Under the circumstances stated above, I am of considered view that these officials can not be allowed the allowance asked for at this stage.(cid:148)

4. Now in the reply the respondents have opposed the petition only for the reason that petitioner is to be paid consolidated salary in terms of his letter of appointment i.e. office order dated 25.7.2002. Petition has also been opposed on the ground that only those persons who were employed 9 prior to 31.12.2001 were entitled for the pay scales and allowances at the rates admissible to the other employees in the organisation.

5. Obviously the stand taken by the respondents is contrary to the terms and conditions of the office order dated

25.7.2002. It is not the case of the respondents that the staff from the surplus pool had been deployed or that petitioner(cid:146)s work was not found to be satisfactory. Petitioner(cid:146)s appointment can also not be said to be irregular as no action whatsoever was taken in this regard. In fact the respondents have admitted that the work and conduct of the petitioner has been satisfactory. Hence petitioner is entitled to the allowances at such rates as are admissible to other employees of his category in the organisation. There is no dispute that petitioner completed one year of his service in the month of July, 2003. Hence the petition needs to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. The respondents are directed to take consequential action of making payment to the petitioner w.e.f. 25.7.2003. Respondents are directed to take all consequential action within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which, thereafter petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum. Petition stands disposed of.(cid:148)

3. In the reply, it is also pleaded that against the aforesaid judgment, LPA has been preferred. Now, Mr. Bimal Gupta, learned counsel has placed on record the judgment dated 30th May, 2012, passed in the same, being LPA No.528 of 2011 alongwith connected matters titled as State of H.P. and others versus Dalip Kumar, wherein following order was passed:- (cid:147)The State has come up in appeals against the judgments dated 24.8.2010 in CWP(T) No.14148, 21.9.2010 in CWP(T) No.14149 and 31.12.2010 in CWP(T) No.15167 of 10

2008. The issue pertains to the claim made by the writ petitioners for the scale applicable for them from the date of appointment various Chowkidar/Peon/Sweeper in the Department of Technical Education. Learned Single Judge having regard to the earlier order passed by this Court disposed of the writ petitions to grant similar treatment. We are informed that the government has taken a decision to regularize the Class- IV employees in the respective posts in 2010. We are also informed that the writ petitioners were left out from the order passed by the Government on 11.4.2012 on the ground that in their cases, the appeals were pending. In view of the action, thus taken by the Government, it is not necessary for us to go the merits of the appeals and the same are accordingly disposed of with direction to the appellants to extend similar treatment to the writ petitioners as in the case of 52 persons similarly situated and covered by the order dated 11.4.2012.

3. With the above observations, the appeals are disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.(cid:148)

4. Consequently, the petitions are allowed and the judgment passed in CWP(T) No.14148/2008 dated 24th August, 2010 titled as Shri Dalip Kumar versus State of H.P. and others (supra), as affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.528 of 2011 alongwith connected matters titled as State of H.P. and others versus Dalip Kumar shall be implemented in the case of present petitioners also.

5. All consequential actions, shall positively be taken by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which, then thereafter, 11 petitioners shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the amount, as may be due and admissible to them, which shall be personally recovered from the erring official(s). Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. August 13, 2012 k.sharma (Sanjay Karol), Judge.

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

Judgment

More cases under Constitution of India