Jai Dev Chauhan and Others vs State of H.P. and Others

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—Petitioner has made the following prayers:

(i) That the action of the Respondents by not allowing the benefit of increment to the Petitioners from the due date is highly illegal, unjust and arbitrary. Since all the Petitioners were promoted as draughtsman from the year, 1988 to 1990 as such all were entitled for the promotional benefit from the date of promotion not after the completion of 12 years of service as has been given by the Respondents.

According to the Petitioner the issue has been decided by the Tribunal and this Court, as can be seen from Ex.P-8 and Ex.P-9 respectively. It is submitted that these orders have been implemented. The learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General points out that in the present case the Petitioner has approached this Court after 20 years, though he is similarly situated like other Petitioners covered by the order referred above. If that be so, when the judgment is implemented in this case of the Petitioner, the benefits hither to can be made notional and except to that extent the principle should be applied uniformly, since it is a question of protection of pay. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that Petitioner may file an appropriate representation before the Respondents and the Respondents will consider the same in the light of observation made above. The needful shall be done within three months from the date of production of the copy of this order along with copy of the writ petition. 3. The petition stands disposed of, as above.