Pyar Chand Sharma vs State of H.P. and another

V.K. Sharma, J.—The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7(i), (ii) and (iii):

7(i) That the impugned orders dated 10-01-2006 and 30-01-2006 placed at Annexure A/1 & A/2 whereby the claim of stepping up of pay of the applicant has been rejected on false and flimsy grounds may please be declared null and void and the same are struck donix, quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.

(ii) That the prayer (i) above, if held in affirmative, the respondents may please be directed to step up the pay of the applicant so as to make it equal to the figure of his juniors right from the date i.e., 01-01-1996 the juniors of the applicant sarv Sh. Rupa Ram and Bardas Kashyap have drawn more pay than the applicant.

(iii) That in consequence to prayer (i) & (ii) above all the arrears accrued may please be directed to be paid to the applicant with interest @ 12% p.a. thereon, from the date of becoming due till the liability as such, is liquidated by 7 the respondent state finally.

In reply, the respondents have taken the following stand vide para 6(b), (c) and (f):

6(b) The contents of the para are admitted and it is submitted that the applicant has concealed the important fact that he was promoted to the post of Himachal Pradesh Forest Service (HPFS) w.e.f. 23.1.1982 on adhoc basis and on regular basis w.e.f. 22.12.1983. He retired on 31.3.1999 after attaining the age of superannuation.

(c) The contents of the para are admitted to the extent that the service career of the applicant remained unblemished. But, it is strongly denied that he has been ignored for giving him promotion and his juniors have been given promotion and undue financial advantage through the back door at his cost under the garb of adhoc promotion.

It is submitted that in the year 1979, there were 12 vacancies (General-9, SC-2, ST-1) in the HPFS cadre. As per R & P Rules of the HPFS, Forest Ranger is the feeder category of this post. For filling up these 12 vacancies on adhoc basis, Forest Ranger in the seniority numbers ranging from 89 to 145 fell under the zone of consideration. The name of the applicant was at Sr. No. 161, as such, his name could no fine place even in the zone of consideration due to low seniority. Further, Sh. Rupa Ram and Sh. Bardas Kashyap, who were junior to the applicant, but they being Scheduled Caste category candidates were considered and promoted on adhoc basis against the two posts meant for scheduled caste candidates. In view of these submissions, it is evident that the contention of the applicant is based on conjectures and surmises as every action of the replying respondent is just and in accordance with rules, which deserves to be maintained.

...........

(f) It is submitted that the applicant was given senior scale of Rs. 12000-16350 in the HPFS cadre w.e.f. 23.1.1998 after completion of 16 years of service in HPFS cadre. The applicant was promoted on adhoc basis on 23.1.1982 and on regular basis on 22.12.83. As per rules, adhoc service is counted for the grant of next higher pay scales and his one year adhoc service too has been counted for the same. Since as submitted in the foregoing paras, Sh. Roopa Ram and Sh. Bardas Kashyap, were promoted on adhoc basis w.e.f. 7.7.1979, earlier to the applicant, they completed 16 years of service as on 1.1.1996 in the HPFS cadre combined with adhoc service. Since they were promoted earlier to the applicant, they deserved to be given their due benefits. The contention of the applicant seeking those benefits for which he is not eligible, is not maintainable.

Rejoinder refuting the above stand on behalf of the respondents and reiterating the averments set up in the petition has been filed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the very outset that the case of the petitioner is covered under two judgments of this Court dated 01.04.2009, in CWP(T) No. 2348 of 2008, Avtar Singh Katwal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and 30.12.2010, in CWP(T) No. 13348 of 2008, J.K. Mohindru vs. State of H.P. and another.

In view of the above, if on facts the case of the petitioner is covered under the judgments referred to hereinabove in CWP(T) No. 2348 of 2008 and in CWP(T) No. 13348 of 2008 and the same have attained finality and have been implemented and he is similarly situate, he shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and benefit of the said judgments alongwith consequential benefits, if any, shall be extended to him within three months from the date of production of copies of this judgment and the judgments referred to hereinabove by the petitioner before the respondents/competent authority.

The petition is disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any.