Om Parkash Lakharwal vs State Of H.P. & Anr

Ranjan Sharma, J

Notice. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

With the consent of the parties, the instant writ petition, is taken up for disposal, at this stage, in view of the order(s) intended to be passed herein.

The petitioner, has filed the instant petition, seeking the following reliefs:

“i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to refix the pay of the petitioner and to further protect the pay of the petitioner as under FR 22(1)(a)(i) to next stage higher than lastly drawn to the post of Lecturers on promotion as Headmasters.

ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to provide all consequential and increment benefits to the petitioner as per the fresh re-fixation of pay and pension.

iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the direction passed by the Hon’ble Court vide judgment dated 07.07.2022 in the CWP No.842 of 2017 titled as “State of H.P. and Others Versus Sardari Lal and Another.”

The case of the petitioner, as submitted by the learned counsel, is that the petitioner was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher. Thereafter, he was promoted as Lecturer Maths (School Cadre) on 05.07.1996 and while working as Lecturer, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Headmaster on 16.07.2009 in accordance with the Recruitment & Promotion Rules of Head master(s).

It is further submitted that on promotion as Head Master, respondents reduced the pay scale/ basic pay, which was being drawn by the petitioner, as Lecturer (School Cadre) resulting in civil consequences and recovery illegally. He further submits that once the petitioner was promoted as Headmaster in terms of his eligibility as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, from the feeder category of Trained Graduate Teacher, [though the petitioner at the time of promotion as Headmaster was working as Lecturer i.e. higher post than the post of TGT with higher pay scale and higher basic pay] then, on promotion as Headmaster the petitioner was entitled to be fixed, in pay over and above the pay being drawn by him as Lecturer (School Cadre), after giving the benefit of Fundamental Rule 22 (I) (a) (i).

In this background, learned counsel submits that the denial of promotional increment(s) under Fundamental Rule 22 (I) (a) (i) as Headmaster, over and above the pay drawn as Lecturer (School Cadre), has resulted in financial loss to the petitioner since his promotion as Headmaster w.e.f. 3.8.2005 till day and resultant recovery, if any, in violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of State of Punjab versus Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, reiterated in the case of Thomas Daniel versus State of Kerala, 2022 SCC On line 536.

Learned counsel further submits that the matter in issue, already stands adjudicated by the Division Bench of this Court, in CWP No. 842/2017 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sardari Lal on 07.07.2022, (Annexure P-4), whereby, the impugned orders of reduction in basic pay and recovery were quashed and set aside.

Per contra, Learned State Counsel, Mr. Vishal Panwar, at this stage submits that the case of the petitioner shall be examined, in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Sardari Lal (supra), in case, the petitioner raises a grievance, by way of a representation to the competent authority.

Faced with this situation, and as prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court permits the petitioner to make a representation to the Respondent No. 2- Director Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh within five weeks from today; with further directions to the aforesaid respondent to examine the representation dated 4.11.2023, Annexure P-3, and the fresh representation to be made and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within six weeks thereafter.

Needless to say, that this Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the instant case, and all questions of facts and law, are left open.

As aforesaid, the instant writ-petition as well as the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly.