Sushil Kumar vs Dr. Som Raj Kalia & Another

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

This petition has been filed for violation of order dated 29.02.2016, passed by erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in T.A. No.1792 of 2015.

Operative portion of the said order is as under:-

"10. Consequently, the orders of termination of the applicant Annexure P-11 and P-12, dated 03.11.2014 and 05.11.2014, respectively, are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits. This order shall not preclude the respondents from initiation of appropriate proceedings or action as warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case against the applicant, in accordance with law."

Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that order passed by erstwhile Tribunal was complied with on 18.04.2016, by re-engaging the petitioner and in pursuant thereto, petitioner had submitted his joining on the same day. He further submits that thereafter, services of the petitioner, were also regularized vide order dated 30.11.2016, placed on record by the petitioner himself as Annexure P-1 alongwith affidavit dated 05.07.2020, filed on his behalf. In this order, it has been specifically mentioned that he has been regularized from the date of regularization of his juniors on 16.05.2015 with all consequential benefits.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that juniors of the petitioner have been engaged on a higher pay scale than the pay scale, on which, petitioner has been engaged.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that junior of the petitioner, who has been regularized on 23.06.2015, has been given higher initial pay i.e. Rs. 9880/-, whereas, petitioner has been given a lesser initial pay, on his regularization, than his junior.

This issue raised by learned counsel for the petitioner has not been adjudicated by erstwhile Tribunal as it has arisen subsequent to decision in Original Application and thus it is beyond the scope and ambit of this contempt petition and otherwise also, there is nothing on record to reflect that what was the initial pay granted at the time of regularization of the petitioner and, therefore, it would be better for the petitioner that this issue is adjudicated in comprehensive petition.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, present contempt petition is closed and disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate comprehensive petition for redressal of his grievances and in such eventuality, delay and laches will not come in his way, as he, under bonafide belief, has been pursuing the said cause in this contempt petition. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.