Jeet Ram vs State of H.P.

Piar Singh Rana, J.—Present Civil Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Brief facts of the case as pleaded are that on dated 18.9.2011 petitioner was regularized as Electrician in the pay scale of Rs. 4020-6200. It is further pleaded that on 20.11.2002 a corrigendum was issued by respondent No. 3 reducing the initial pay from Rs. 4020/- to Rs. 3120/-. It is further pleaded that on dated 4.1.2003 again respondent No. 3 issued corrigendum that the pay scale of petitioner shall be Rs. 3120-5160 instead of pay scale of Rs. 4020-6200 issued vide earlier order dated 18.9.2002. It is further pleaded that in the month of June 2003 State Administrative Tribunal stayed the order of corrigendum issued by respondents. It is further pleaded that thereafter Hon''ble High Court of HP vide order dated 3.9.2010 had directed the petitioner to make representation to respondent No. 3 within two weeks from the date of order and respondent No. 3 was directed to pass a speaking order touching all the points raised in the representation within another two months. It is further pleaded that on dated 10.11.2010 the petitioner filed representation to respondent No. 3 and thereafter on dated 24.1.2011 detailed representation was filed requesting respondents to allow the scale of Rs. 4020-6200 originally granted to the petitioner as Electrician w.e.f. 1.1.2000. It is further pleaded that on dated 23.3.2011 respondent No. 3 heard the petitioner in person and took his undertaking to the effect that he is ready to receive the pay scale of Rs. 3120-6200 provided no recoveries are to be effected from him. It is further pleaded that on dated 21.4.2011 respondent No. 3 decided the representation and passed order to the effect that original order dated 18.9.2002 providing pay scale of Rs. 4020-6200 would be substituted as Rs. 3120-5160 and respondent No. 3 further directed that wages drawn in excess would be recovered in rational installments from the petitioner. It is further pleaded that on dated 7.5.2011 the petitioner made representation to respondent No. 3 for reviewing the office order dated 21.4.2011 qua recovery. It is further pleaded that orders dated 20.11.2002, 4.1.2003 and 21.4.2011 passed by respondent No. 3 be quashed. It is further pleaded that respondents be directed to grant higher pay scale of Rs. 4550-7220 after completion of five years service along with arrears and interest @ 12% per annum. It is further pleaded that respondents be directed to release annual increment falling due on 1.1.2009, 1.1.2010 and 1.1.2011 along with arrears and interest @ 12% per annum. Prayer for acceptance of writ petition sought.

Per contra reply filed on behalf of the contesting respondent pleaded therein that services of petitioner have been regularized in terms of policy framed by the State Government for regularization of daily wages workers in pursuance to the orders of Hon''ble Supreme Court passed in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Vs. State of HP. It is further pleaded that Government of HP vide notification dated 30.8.1987 clubbed various skilled and semi skilled categories and re-designated as Jr. Technicians. It is further pleaded that there is provision to regularize the services of the petitioner as Electrician Grade-I. It is further pleaded that minimum of the time scale to the post of Jr. Technician (Electrician) is Rs. 3120-5160. It is further pleaded that petitioner himself opted for the revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.2006 as per Annexure R3 placed on record with his signature. It is further pleaded that pay scale was inadvertently written as Rs. 4020-6200 instead of Rs. 3120-5160 and the same was rectified by way of issuance of corrigendum placed on record. It is further pleaded that petitioner has been regularized as Junior Technician (Electrician) in view of Government notification dated 30.8.1997. Prayer for dismissal of writ petition sought.

Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the parties and also perused entire records carefully.

Following points arise for determination in the present writ petition:

(1) Whether orders dated 20.11.2002, 4.1.2003 and 21.4.2011 passed by respondent No. 3 are liable to be quashed?

(2) Whether petitioner is legally entitled for higher pay scale after completion of five years of service along with arrears and interest @ 12% per annum and whether petitioner is also entitled for annual increment falling due on 1.1.2009, 1.1.2010 and 1.1.2011 along with arrears and interest @ 12% per annum?

Finding upon Point No. 1.

Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that orders dated 20.11.2002, 4.1.2003 and 21.4.2011 are liable to be quashed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused annexure P2 corrigendum dated 20.11.2002 and annexure P3 corrigendum dated 4.1.2003. In corrigendum annexure P2 dated 20.11.2002 Superintending Engineer I & PH Circle Shimla-9 has mentioned that pay scale of the petitioner would be Rs. 3120-5160 instead of Rs. 4020-6200 and in corrigendum annexure P3 dated 4.1.2003 it has been mentioned that pay scale of the petitioner would be Rs. 3120-5160 instead of Rs. 4020-6200. It is proved on record that thereafter petitioner filed CWP(T) No. 9395 of 2008 titled Jeet Ram Vs. State of HP and others which was decided on 3.9.2010. Hon''ble High Court of HP directed in CWP(T) No. 9395 of 2008 that petitioner would file representation to respondent No. 3 within a period of two weeks w.e.f. 3.9.2010 and respondent No. 3 shall decide the representation with a speaking order in another two months. It is proved on record that thereafter in pursuance to the direction of Hon''ble High Court of HP passed in CWP(T) No. 9395 of 2008 titled Jeet Ram Vs. State of HP and others petitioner filed representation and appeared before Superintending Engineer I & PH Circle Shimla and has given statement that he is ready to accept pay scale of Rs. 3120 provided his past recovery should not be recovered. In view of the own statement of petitioner Jeet Ram dated 23.3.2011 that he would accept the pay scale of Rs. 3120 it is not expedient in the ends of justice to quash corrigendum annexure P2 dated 20.11.2002 and corrigendum annexure P3 dated 4.1.2003 on the concept of estoppel.

Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that statement of petitioner Jeet Ram dated 23.3.2011 was recorded under pressure and under mis-representation of facts is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. The fact whether statement of Jeet Ram was recorded under pressure and misrepresentation cannot be decided in present writ petition because it involves complicated question of facts and it well settled law that complicated question of facts qua pressure and misrepresentation of facts cannot be decided in a writ petition.

Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that respondents cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate the statement of the petitioner and the petitioner has given conditional statement that pay scale of Rs. 3120 would be accepted to him on the condition that past recovery would not be effected is accepted for the reason hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused the statement of Jeet Ram recorded on 23.3.2011 in the presence of Superintending Engineer I & PH Circle Shimla. It is prima facie proved on record that Jeet Ram has given conditional statement that pay scale of Rs. 3120 would be accepted to him on the condition that past recovery would not be effected. The conditional statement given by Jeet Ram has been accepted by respondents and now the respondents cannot be allowed to approbate or reprobate the statement given by petitioner Jeet Ram. In view of the fact that respondents have accepted the offer given by petitioner Jeet Ram by way of statement it is held that now respondents cannot be allowed to recover past arrears from the petitioner. Hence it is held that the words "wages drawn in excess be recovered by way of rational installments" incorporated in office order dated 21.4.2011 annexure P8 are ordered to be deleted and remaining part of the office order dated 24.4.2011 annexure P8 will remain operative.

Finding upon Point No. 2.

Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that petitioner is entitled to higher pay scale after five years service along with arrears and interest @ 12% per annum and is also entitled for annual increments falling due on 1.1.2009, 1.1.2010 and 1.1.2011 along with arrears and interest @ 12% per annum. The matter of higher pay scale after completion of five years service and matter of annual increments cited supra will be decided by respondent No. 3 Superintending Engineer I & PH Circle Shimla within three months from today strictly as per law and rules.

In view of the above stated facts it is held (1) That in office order dated 21.4.2011 annexure P8 passed by learned Superintending Engineer I & PH Circle Shimla the words "wages drawn in excess be recovered in rational installments" shall be deemed to be deleted and other part of office order shall be deemed to be operative. Hence office order dated 21.4.2011 annexure P8 is modified to this extent only. (2) That matter regarding grant of higher pay after completion of five years service along with arrears and interest @ 12% per annum and the matter regarding eligibility of annual increments falling due on dated 1.1.2009, 1.1.2010 and 1.1.2011 along with arrears and interest @ 12% per annum will be decided by respondent No. 3 Superintending Engineer I & PH Circle Shimla within three months from today in accordance with law and rules. (3) Other relief(s) claimed by petitioner declined and it is held that all other relief(s) merged in point No. 1 and 2 determined by the Court. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. All miscellaneous application(s) are also disposed of.