AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sandeep Sharma, J
By way of present petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:
"a) Quash the impugned order dated 14.01.2013 (Annexure A-1) being arbitrary, malafide and illegal;
b) issue directions to the respondent department to deem the applicant to have been appointed wef 08/12/2002 for all purposes and intents entitling the applicant for benefits under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as prior to issuance of notification dated 15.05.2003 with all the consequential benefits and deduction of my CPF may kindly be stopped forthwith."
Precisely, facts of the case as emerge from the record are that the petitioner after having rendered sixteen years service in Indian Army was released from Indian Army on 28.2.1999, which entitled him for the benefits of being termed as an Ex-Serviceman. After release from the Indian Army, petitioner got himself registered with Ex-servicemen Employment Cell, Himachal Pradesh, Directorate of Sainik Welfare, Himachal Pradesh, H.P., for re- settlement and re-employment in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Vide letter dated 21.11.2002, name of the petitioner alongwith other candidates was sponsored for the post of Assistant Librarian. Petitioner was duly selected for the post of Assistant Librarian by the Selection Committee of Ex-servicemen Employment Cell, Hamirpur. Though in terms of aforesaid communication, petitioner was to be issued appointment letter within a period of twenty days, but since he did not receive any intimation within the aforesaid period, he represented to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, whereafter petitioner was issued appointment letter on 7.2.2009. Now claim of the petitioner is that he is deemed to have been appointed in service within a period of twenty days from the date of the sponsorship of his name.
Respondents with a view to rebut the aforesaid claim of the petitioner have claimed that vide letter dated 13.3.2003, it was decided to make a comprehensive review of the whole process with respect to the interviews and selection process for various posts in Ayurveda, Animal Husbandry, Education, Forest and in all other departments, which had been held during the last few months and ongoing selection process was stopped. Respondents have further stated in their reply that Government vide letter dated 8.10.2017, conveyed approval of the Government for filling up of 300 vacant posts of Assistant librarians on contract basis as per prescribed R&P Rules. However, subsequently vide letter dated 10.4.2008, necessary instructions were issued to only 200 posts of the Assistant librarian. Vide letter dated 2.9.2008, approval was conveyed by the Government, which also provided the names of Ex-Servicemen sponsored by the Employment Cell for appointment.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that similarly situate persons had also approached the Erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal by way of different original applications, praying therein for the similar reliefs as has been prayed in the instant petition. All cases filed by other persons were allowed by the Erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal on 7.5.2019, but at that time, case of the petitioner was inadvertently left out.
Parties are ad-idem that case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment dated 7.5.2019, passed by the Tribunal in case titled Kuldeep Singh v. State of HP and Anr , whereby respondents were directed to treat the petitioner to have been appointed w.e.f. 8.12.2002 i.e. within 20 days from the receipt of the sponsorship/nomination from the Ex- servicemen Employment Cell, entitling him for the benefit under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 with all consequential benefits. While passing aforesaid order, the Tribunal below has specifically held that actual benefits shall be restricted to three years prior to filing of CWP No. 90 of 2013, titled Kuldip Singh v. State of HP and Anr.
Having carefully perused aforesaid judgment rendered by the Tribunal, this Court finds that same is based upon the judgment dated 26.7.2011 rendered by this Court in case titled Hridye Prakash v. State of HP (2012( Sup. Him LR 2279; (2011) 3 Sim LC 144, wherein this Court has held that if the petitioners are nominated by the Ex-servicemen Cell of the State, their appointments are required to be made in terms of circular dated 31.3.1990. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that name of the applicant was sponsored for appointment by the Ex-servicemen Cell and as such, he was to be appointed as Assistant Librarian within twenty days from the date of sponsorship of his name.
Consequently, in view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no impediment in accepting the prayer made in the petition and accordingly, same is disposed of making the directions in Hridye Prakash and Kuldip Singh's cases (supra) mutatis mutandi applicable, also to the present petition. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.