State of H.P. vs Shri Badri Singh Bhatia

Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 7.4.2009 delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby he allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) and directed the State to treat the petitioner as Sub Editor w.e.f. 7.12.1984 for all intents and purposes. The petitioner applied for the post of Article Writer and was appointed as such, on 7.12.1984. He thereafter made a representation that the post of Article Writer be re-designated as post of Sub Editor. This representation of the petitioner was accepted in the following terms:-

Consequent upon the re-designation of posts of Article Writer (Rs.570-1000) and Reception Officer (Rs.510-940) to the posts of Sub Editor (Rs.700-1200) respective vide Finance Commissioner-cum-Secretary(PR) to the Govt. of H.P. Officer Order No. Pub. (B) 15-4/84, dated 29.6.1987, the holders of the above posts, are hereby formally appointed as Sub Editor and Assistant Public Relations Officer we.f. 29.6.87 as under. The seniority of the existing incumbents of the aforesaid re-designated posts will be reckoned in the respective order/grade w.e.f. 29.6.87.

Name

Appointed as

1.

Sh. B.S. Bhatia

Sub Editor on officiating basis.

2.

ShriBaldev Raj Reception Officer

Asstt. Public Relations Officer on substantive basis by virtue of his having been confirmed as Reception Officer w.e.f. 21.1.86

The formal fixation of pay of the above official is being fixed separately.

Thus from 29.6.1987, the petitioner is being treated as Sub Editor for all intents and purposes. The petitioner again made representations that he be treated as Sub Editor right from 7.12.1984 when he was appointed as Article Writer. These representations were rejected in 1991 and 1995 and thereafter the petitioner filed OA No. 2289 of 1995 before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. On the abolition of the Tribunal, the original application was transferred to this Court in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Transfer of Decided and Pending Cases and Applications) Act, 2008 and registered as CWP(T) No. 2811 of 2008. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition mainly on the ground that the respondent-State itself had accepted the plea of the petitioner that the post of Article Writer was identical to that of Sub Editor. Hence this appeal by the State.

We have heard Mr. Vivek Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and Ms. Ranjana Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner. The main contention raised on behalf of the State is that the petitioner applied for the post of Article Writer and not Sub Editor. According to the State, the post of Article Writer was in the pre revised scale of Rs.570-1000 whereas the post of Sub Editor was in the scale of Rs.700-1200. It is submitted that these two posts could not be equated. Mr. Vivek Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the State has urged that in case posts of Sub Editor had been advertised in the higher scale of Rs.700-1200 probably other people could have applied and the petitioner may or may not have been selected.

On the other hand, it is urged by Ms. Ranjana Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner that the nature of duties and the educational qualification of both the posts are very similar and virtually identical and therefore, the posts of Article Writer should have been re-designated as Sub Editor right from the date when the petitioner was appointed. Admittedly, as per the Rules the posts of Sub Editor and Article Writer are two separate categories of post. On perusal of record we find that the petitioner had applied for the post of Article Writer and not Sub Editor. The selection was made through the H.P. Public Service Commission and the petitioner was selected as Article Writer in the pay scale of Rs.570-1000. He willingly accepted this post on 4.11.1984 in this pay scale. Thereafter, he made representation to the effect that the nature of his duties is same or similar to those of Sub Editor and the pay scale of sub Editor is Rs.700-1200. The educational qualifications are also similar. Therefore, the petitioner requested that he may be allowed the scale of Rs.700-1200.

As stated above, this representation was accepted on 10th July, 1987 and from that date the petitioner has been in the scale of Rs.700-1200. The question is whether the petitioner is entitled to the scale from an earlier date. We are of the considered opinion that this benefit cannot be granted by the Court from an earlier date. The Government while recommending of the case of the petitioner for re-designation as Sub Editor has clearly mentioned that this order would take effect from 29.6.1987 and the petitioner''s seniority in the cadre of Sub Editors would be reckoned only from that date.

At this stage, it would be pertinent to mention that the stand of the State both in the reply to the writ petition and in this appeal is that the proposal to redesignate the post of Article Writer as Sub Editor was accepted not because the work of Article Writer and Sub Editor was equal but because the department wanted to reduce various categories of post and while reducing the categories, the posts of Copy Writer and Article Writer were clubbed with and re-designated as Sub Editor. Further according to the State, this proposal had been sent to the Government on 8.5.1984 and was approved by the Government on 29.6.1987 and would be effected only from 29.6.1987.

We also find that in the seniority list Ext. P-12, attached with the petition by the petitioner, he is shown junior to three other persons in the seniority list of Sub Editor as on 31.5.1984. Mr. Roop Singh Negi was appointed as Sub Editor on 23.9.1989, Mr. Sanjay Sharma on 24.9.1986 and Mr. Yadvinder Singh on 2.1.1987. Mr. Yadvinder Singh was not even made respondent in the writ petition. The other two i.e. Mr. Roop Singh Negi and Mr. Sanjay Sharma were promoted as Assistant Editors in August 1994. All these three persons had joined service as Sub Editors after due selection through the H.P. Public Service Commission. The petitioner could have also applied for the post of Sub Editor through the H.P. Public Service Commission because he was holding lower post of Article Writer. Therefore, the rights of these persons could not have been affected by giving the status of Sub Editor before them. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition and directing that the petitioner be treated as Sub Editor w.e.f. the date of his appointment as Article Writer on 7.12.1984. This benefit could be available to him only after 29.6.1987. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner shall be deemed to have been dismissed. No costs.