STATE CWP(T) No. 6554 of 2008 · Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. Consequential action be positively taken 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. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of. (…
Judgment
disputed that petitioner was posted as District Welfare Officer, first at Sundernagar (Mandi) and then at Kullu. This is evident from the Notifications dated 26.7.2000 and 28.5.2001 (Annexures A-4 & A-5). It is also the petitioner(cid:146)s case that she was also posted in the Directorate against the post of District Welfare Officer.
There is no dispute that the post of District Welfare Officer was to be filled-up in accordance with the rules framed by the Govt. known as (cid:147)Himachal Pradesh Social & Women(cid:146)s Welfare Department, District Welfare Officer-cum-Probation Officer (Class-II Gazetted) Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 1993(cid:148) (Annexure A-1).
Petitioner was fully eligible to be considered for filling up the post of District Welfare Officer. In fact in the reply respondents have admitted that (cid:147)certain posts of District Welfare Officer are lying vacant(cid:148). It is also admitted that the steps for filling up these posts on regular basis are likely to be taken up.
It is not in dispute that for one reason or the other, the posts could not be filled up on regular basis. This Court in CWP(T) No. 2319/2008 decided on 18.9.2009, also gave a direction that the case of the petitioner therein (Shashi Bijawan) be considered for promotion to the post of District Welfare Officer-cum-Probation Officer w.e.f.
9.9.1994.
During the pendency of the petition, petitioner has retired. As such learned counsel fairly submits that a direction be issued to the respondents to pay salary for the period for which the petitioner continued to officiate as a District Welfare Officer.
It is not in dispute that even though petitioner was actually not promoted as District Welfare Officer but nonetheless she was posted as such over a continuous period of time. Consequently keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Secy.-cum-Chief Engineer vs. Hari Om Sharma & Ors., 1998 (5) SCC 87 as also the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Bali Ram Sharma & Ors. vs. State of H.P. & Anr., CWP(T) No.5293 of 2008, a copy of which is taken on record, a direction is issued to the respondents to accord monitory benefits to the petitioner for the period for which she continued to officiate as a District Welfare Officer.
Operative part
Consequential action be positively taken 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. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. September 28, 2010 (rana)
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.