Himachal Pradesh High Court
The State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr vs Ishwar Chaudhary & Ors on 7 December, 2018
Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
.
CWP No. 2319 of 2017
Reserved on : 11.9.2018.
Decided on: 07.12.2018.
The State of Himachal Pradesh & anr. ......Petitioners.
Versus
Ishwar Chaudhary & ors. ......Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes.
For the petitioners : Mr. Vikas Rathore & Narinder
Guleria, Addl. Advocate
Generals.
For the respondents : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma,
Advocate, for respondents No. 1
to 9.
Nemo for respondent No. 10.
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.
The State, respondent in T.A. No. 633 of 2015 has assailed the judgment dated 29.12.2016 passed by learned Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, whereby the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes.
::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2018 22:56:59 :::HCHP 2respondents herein, writ petitioners, have been held entitled to the grant of pay scale/equivalence at par with District Sports .
Officers (re-designated as District Youth Services and Sports Officers) along with consequential benefits including promotion(s), if any, due and admissible to them with a prayer to quash the same in the exercise of the powers of judicial review vested in this Court.
2. The writ petitioners were appointed as Coaches on different dates, as detailed in the chart below along with their educational qualification:
Sr. Name Qualification Designation Date of Present No. joining Pay scale
1. Sh. Ishwar B.A., N.I.S. Wrestling 28.2.85 Same.
Chaudhary (Wrestling) Coach
officiated as
Distt. Youth
Services &
Sports Officer
w.e.f. 8.7.94 to
4.7.97. Rs.
1800-3200
Revised w.e.f.
1.1.1996 to Rs.
5800-9200.
2. Kanwar Singh B.A. NIS Distt. Youth 4.3.85 Same
(Volleyball) Services &
Sports Officer
(Officiating)
Rs. 1800-3200
Revised Rs.
5800-9200
w.e.f. 1.1.1996
3. Ved Prakash MA NIS Distt. Youth 4.12.84 Same.
(Table Services &
Tennis) Sports Officer
(Officiating)
w.e.f. 22.7.94
::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2018 22:56:59 :::HCHP
3
onwards Rs.
1800-3200
Revised Rs.
.
5800-9200
w.e.f. 1.1.1996.
4. Sh. M.P. Vaidya B.A. NIS Distt. Youth 4.12.84 Same
(Cricket) Services &
Sports Officer
(Officiating)
w.e.f. 8.7.94
onwards Rs.
1800-3200
Revised Rs.
5800-9200
w.e.f. 1.1.96
5. Prithvi Raj B.A. NIS Distt. Youth 31.12.84 Same.
(Boxing) Services &
Sports Officer
r (Officiating)
w.e.f. 10/95
onwards Rs.
1800-3200
Revised Rs.
5800-9200
w.e.f. 1.1.1996
6. Rajinder Dogra B.A. NIS Distt. Youth 27.12.84 Same
(Basketball) Services &
Sports Officer
(Officiating)
w.e.f. 7/94
onwards Rs.
1800-3200
Revised R.
5800-9200
w.e.f. 1.1.1996.
3. They were appointed as such in the respondent No.2-
department i.e. Director, Youth Services and Sports, Himachal Pradesh on the recommendation of the 3 rd respondent-H.P. Public Service Commission as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules 1980 as respondent No.2-department had not framed its rules at that time.
::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2018 22:56:59 :::HCHP 44. As a matter of fact, on coming into being The State of Himachal Pradesh in the year 1966, the posts of District Sports .
Officers and Coaches were under the department of Education and manned as per the rules framed by the said department. It is in the year 1982 the State Government has set up new Directorate of Youth Services and Sports (Respondent No. 2) at Shimla and the services of the District Sports Officers/Coaches r to stand transferred from the department of Education to the newly created Directorate. It is 1980 Rules, referred to hereinabove, remained in force and governing the service conditions of the District Sports Officers and Coaches in the newly created Directorate till 1997. It is in the year 1984/85 six posts of Coaches were created and filled up in terms of 1980 rules as aforesaid through the H.P. Public Service Commission. Initially in the department of Education there were common rules applicable to the post of Coaches/District Sports Officers, re-produced herein as under:
RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION RULES FOR THE POST OF COACHES/DISTRICT SPORTS OFFICER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
1. Name of the Posts Coach/District Sports Officer.2. No. of posts 5
3. Classification of posts: Class-III
4. Pay Scale. Rs. 300-25-600 ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2018 22:56:59 :::HCHP 5
5. Whether selection post or Non-Selection Post Selection post.
.
6. Age for direct recruitment 18 to 27 years.
7. Minimum educational & other ESSENTIAL:
qualification required for i) Bachelors Degree or its direct recruits. equivalent from a recognized University.
ii)Diploma/certificate in the concerned Game with at least one year duration.
OR Diploma in Physical Education r or Graduate in Physical Education with at least 6 months coaching certificate/ Diploma from a recognized University/institution.
DESIRABLE:
i) should have participated in a recognized University/ state Level meet.
ii)Knowledge of customs, manners and dialects of Himachal Pradesh and suitability for appointment in the peculiar conditions prevailing in the Pradesh.
8. Whether age and educational qualification Not applicable. prescribed for direct recruits will apply in case of promotees.
9. Period of probation, if any. 2 years subject to such further extension for a period not exceeding one year as any be ordered by the competent authority in special circumstances and for resume to be recorded in writing.
::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2018 22:56:59 :::HCHP 610. Method of recruitment, whether by direct 100% by direct recruitment. Recruitment or by deputation, .
promotion/transfer and the percentage of vacancies to be filled by various methods.
11. In case of recruitment by Not applicable.
Promotion, deputation/ transfer grades from which promotion, deputation/transfer to be made.
12. If a D.P.C. exists, what is its Not applicable. Composition.
13. Circumstances under which the Himachal Pradesh Public As required under the law. Service Commission is to be consulted in making recruitment.
5. It is seen that both the Coach and District Sports Officer were placed under the same pay scale of `300-25-600.
However, on the revision of the pay scale while the category of the District Sports Officers placed in the pay scale of `800-1400, the Coaches in the pay scale of `700-1300. Therefore, when six newly created posts of Coaches were advertised by respondent No. 2 through respondent No. 3, the pay scale in the advertisement was mentioned as `700-1300. The writ petitioners though were appointed as Coaches in this very pay scale, however, kept on ventilating their grievance with the respondents in this regard. In the Meanwhile, in the State of Punjab and Haryana also, while the District Sports Officers were placed in the higher grade of `800-1400 the Coaches were ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2018 22:56:59 :::HCHP 7 denied the same. The Coaches, as such, have filed Civil Writ Petition No. 5036 of 1984, title Ram Phal Thakran, Wrestling .
Coach versus State of Haryana & Others in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which was allowed vide judgment dated 24.7.1990. The LPA preferred by the State of Haryana was also dismissed. On the other hand, the judgment in Ram Phal Thakran's ibid was relied upon by the tat eof Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 3284 of 1992, titled Teg Singh, Kabaddi Coach and others Vs. The State of Haryana and another, decided on 18.8.1992. The State in that case went in appeal to the Apex Court by way of filing SLP No. 8045 of 1992, however, the same also met with the same fate being dismissed on 12.12.1995. In this way both judgments i.e. Ram Phal's and Tek Singh's cases supra had attained finality. As a result thereof in the State of Haryana, the District Sports Officers and Coaches came to be placed under the same pay scale of `2200-4000. On creation of respondent No. 2-department, ten posts of District Sports Officers were re-designated as District Youth Services and Sports Officers and the writ petitioners who initially were recruited as Coaches also given the charge of the posts so re-designated. The support in this regard can be drawn from the tabulated information below:-
::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2018 22:56:59 :::HCHP 8Sr. Name & Present Transferred Remarks No. Designation place of to posting .
1. Chaman Singh, Nahan Solan On request. He will DYSSO relieve Sh. R.L. Jandeva, Youth Coordinator, NYK of additional charge of the post of DYSSO.
2. M.P. Vaidya, Chamba Bilaspur On request. He will Cricket Coach hold the functional charge of the post of DYSSO, Bilaspur, relieving Sh. M.R. Sharma, Regional Coordinator, NYK of the additional charge of the posts of DYSSO.
3. Ved Prakash T.T. Kullu Keylong On administrative Coach grounds. He will hold the functional charge of the post of DYSSO, Keylong relieving S.D.M. of additional charge of the post of DYSSO.
4. Ishwar Solan Nahan On administrative Chaudhary, grounds. He will hold Wrestling Coach the functional charge of the post of DYSSO, Nahan.
5. Rajinder Dogra, Hamirpur Una On administrative Basketball grounds. He will hold Coach the functional charge of the post of DYSSO, Una.
6. Kanwar Singh, Solan Chamba On administrative Volleyball Coach grounds. He will hold the functional charge of the post of DYSSO, Chamba.
6. Admittedly, the posts of District Sports Officers/Coaches were equated under the 1980 rules. The respondent-State, however, given the pay scale of `800-1400 to ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2018 22:56:59 :::HCHP 9 four Coaches but denied the same to the writ petitioners who were recruited subsequently in the year 1984-85. On the other .
hand, respondent No. 2-department has framed its own rules namely 'The Himachal Pradesh Youth Services & Sports, Youth Organizer Class-III (Non-Gazetted), Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1997'. The Youth Organizer in the department though had separate cadre and were under the lower pay scale i.e. Rs.
1500-2640 as compared to that of the Coaches i.e. Rs. 1640- 2923 were equated thereby with the Coaches. They were also brought in the feeder category for promotion to the post of District Youth Services and Sports Officers to the extent of 50% along with the Coaches.
7. The 1980 rules came to be repealed on coming into being the 1997 rules, hereinabove. Since the petitioners were given the charge of the post of District Youth Services and Sports Officers but not paid them salary as was admissible to the holder of such posts and to the contrary junior person i.e. Youth Organizers were brought at par with them and in feeder category for promotion to the post of District Youth Services and Sports Officers, therefore, initially original application No. 2310 of 1999 was filed in the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. On abolition of the Tribunal in the year 2008, the same was transferred to this Court. However, on re-establishment of the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal in 2015, the ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2018 22:56:59 :::HCHP 10 same was again transferred there and registered as TA No. 633 of 2015.
.
8. The writ petitioners have sought a direction to quash the 1997 rules/the quota of 50% provided thereunder for promotion to the Youth Organizers against the post of District Youth Services and Sports Officers. A direction was also sought to the respondents to promote the writ petitioners against the
9.
r to post of District Youth Services and Sports Officers against the vacancies in existence even well before 1980 repealed rules.
In reply, the stand of the respondent-State was that the rules were framed by respondent No.2-department in the year 1997 and as such, original application filed in the year 1999 i.e. after two years not maintainable. Also that, petitioners who were appointed as Coaches in the pay scale of `700-1300 have accepted the offer of appointment so made without raising any protest. It is also denied that the Coaches and District Sports Officers were borne on the same cadre. It is admitted that in terms of 1980 rules, the posts of Coaches/District Sports Officers were common but the appointments against each category of posts were being made separately. The petitioners, as such, were stated to be not entitled to the pay scale of `800-1400 nor aggrieved in any manner by the rules framed in the year 1997.
10. Learned Tribunal on hearing learned Counsel representing the parties on both sides and also going through the ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2018 22:56:59 :::HCHP 11 record as well as taking into consideration the law laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 5036 .
of 1984, titled Ram Phal Thakran, Wrestling Coach versus State of Haryana & others and Teg Singh & Others Versus The State of Haryana and another, CWP No. 3284 of 1992 and upheld by the Apex Court also held the Coaches entitled to pay scales/equivalence at par with District Sports Officers (re-
designated as District Sports Officers) benefits including promotion(s), if any.
11.
r along with consequential The respondent-State though has challenged the impugned judgment, however, only on the grounds inter-alia, that 1980 rules were notified by the department of Education common for Coaches/District Sports Officers after 7-8 months of the revision of pay scale and as the pay revision has an overriding effect upon the R&P Rules so far as the pay scale are concerned, coupled with the factum of the pay scales for the post of Coaches were known to the writ petitioners, however, irrespective of it they accepted unconditionally the offer of appointment made to them, they were not justified in approaching the Tribunal at a stage when the respondent No.2- State had framed its own rules. While admitting that the 1980 Recruitment and Promotion Rules were common for District Sports Officers/Coaches, their cadre and seniority were separate.
The respondent No.2-department had sent requisition to ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2018 22:56:59 :::HCHP 12 respondent No. 3 for selection of six Coaches in the pay scale of `700-1300. The offer of appointment made to them was .
accepted unconditionally. Therefore, the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in B.S. Yadav versus State of Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 561 is stated to be not applicable in this case. It is, therefore, submitted that the claim of the writ petitioners qua their entitlement to the post of District Youth Services and Sports
12. Mr. r to Officers with consequential benefits w.e.f. 1997 is false and as such has been sought to be rejected.
Vikas Rathore, learned Additional Advocate General while arguing that the impugned judgment is not legally and factually sustainable has sought the same to be quashed and set aside, Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners has urged that learned Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of this case and also the law applicable.
According to Mr. Sharma, the law laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ram Phal's case, cited supra, is squarely applicable to the facts of this case, therefore, according to him the impugned judgment call for no interference by this Court.
13. Admittedly, the posts of Coaches/District Sports Officers initially were being manned by the department of Education. The common rules for the post of Sports Coaches /District Sports Officers were framed in the year 1980. It is seen ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2018 22:56:59 :::HCHP 13 that both posts were placed under the pay scale of `300-25-600 meaning thereby that both posts were common and placed under .
the same pay scale. It is in the revision of pay scale in the year 1984 while the District Sports Officers were placed under the pay scale of `800-1400, the writ petitioners were placed under the pay scale of `700-1300. In the State of Punjab and Haryana also, the common pay scales for Coaches and District Sports Officers i.e. `700-1250 with selection grade of `750-1400 to 20% post was revised as `800-1600, however, only for District Sports Officers and not given to the Coaches. Therefore, with similar set of facts and circumstances one Ram Phal Thakran, Wrestling Coach has filed Civil Writ Petition No. 5036 of 1984 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The writ petition was allowed. This judgment reads as follow:-
"The petitioners in this writ petition, who are working as coaches in various games in the Sports Department of the State of Haryana, are claiming pay parity with the District Sports Officer working in the same department.
The case as put forth in the writ petition is that the petitioners are working as Coaches in the Sports Department of the State of Haryana. The Coaches and the District Sports Officers formed one cadre in the department where they had joint seniority and a post of a Coach and that of the District Sports Officers are ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2018 22:56:59 :::HCHP 14 interchangeable. It has been further averred that prior to 1968 the pay scale of .
coaches and the district Sports Officers who formed a joint cadre was Rs. 250-500 which was revised to Rs.300-600 after 1968.
Further it has been stated that with effect from 1st April, 1979 the pay scale of both Coaches and the District Sports Officers in the joint cadre was revised to Rs. 700-1250 with selection grade of Rs. 750-1450 to 20% posts of the joint cadre of the coaches and the District Sports Officers. However, vide r order dated 2nd October, 1984 (Annexure P-4) the State Government had revised the grade of District Sports Officer at Headquarters from Rs. 700-1250 to Rs.
800-1600 with effect from 28th September, 1984. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the Coaches and the District Sports Officers formed one cadre; they had a joint seniority and their posts were interchangeable, yet they had been discriminated against by the State government, inasmuch as the pay scales of the District Sports Officers had been revised from Rs. 700-1250 to Rs. 800-1600, whereas the pay scale of Coaches has not been revised. According to the petitioners this action of the State Government was arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2018 22:56:59 :::HCHP 15
Mr. J.L. Gupta, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted .
that since Coaches and the District Sports Officers formed one joint cadre; they had a joint seniority and their posts were interchangeable and they were getting the same pay scale as the District Sports Officers, the Government could not just revise the pay scales of the posts of District Sports Officers and not of Coaches. According to the learned counsel, the government must justify as to why while revising the pay scale of the District Sports Officers, the pay scale of coaches was not revised. He further submitted that since there was no justification to treat the Coaches differently than the District Sports Officers for the purpose of pay scales and there was no reasonable classification, between these two categories of Officers, the action was wholly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. There is force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners.
On the other hand, Mr. Madan Dev, learned counsel for the State, argued that with effect from 28th September, 1984, when Annexure P-4 was issued, the cadre of the District Sports Officers and that of Coaches was separated and they had a separate seniority from the said date. Taking into consideration the duties ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2018 22:56:59 :::HCHP 16 performed by the District Sports Officers, their pay scale was revised. In the written .
statement it has been admitted that prior to the order Annexure P-4, which was issued on 2nd October, 1984, the Coaches and the District Sports Officers had a joint seniority and they formed one cadre. It has been further stated that it was only the senior most Coach who was made the District Sports Officer and the posts were not interchangeable.
Annexure P-2 with the written statement is gradation list as it existed on January 1, 1983 in the department of Sports, Haryana, wherein I find that the first three officers in the gradation list are District Sports Officers, whereas the officers at No. 4 is a Coach, Officers at Nos. 5 and 6 are again District Sports Officers (Officers Nos. 5 and 6 have been posted officer at Headquarter), whereas No. 7 is again a Coach. From this gradation list it is apparent that it was not necessarily that the senior most coach was being appointed as District Sports Officer.
Mr. J.L. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, has drawn my attention to Annexure P-3, which is an order of the State Government dated 2nd March, 1984 showing that the post of District Sports Officer and Coach was interchangeable with each other. Be that as it may, once the Coaches and the District Sports Officers formed joint ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2018 22:56:59 :::HCHP 17 cadre right prior to 1966 to 1984, the coaches and the district Sports Officers .
were in the same pay scale having a joint cadre and joint seniority, I find no jurisdiction not to treat the Coaches equally with the District Sports Officers for the purpose of pay scales. Once these two categories of posts were held to be equal for the purpose of revision of pay scales, then there cannot be any discrimination between them for the purpose of revision of pay scale. I may also mention that the arguments of the learned counsel for the State that since these two classes of officers perform different duties, therefore, the pay scale of District Sports Officers was revised, has no force, inasmuch as, as stated above once these two classes were joint for the purpose of seniority and pay scale, then there cannot be any discrimination between them. Otherwise also, it is the quality and the responsibility of the post which was to be seen. In no way it can be said that the Coaches were in any way inferior to the District Sports Officers regarding the nature and the quality of the work and duties. The post of a District Sports Officer is not a higher or a promotional post for the rank of a Coach. It is not the case of the respondent State that District Sports Officers started performing some different or additional duties which ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2018 22:56:59 :::HCHP 18 they were not performing prior to issue of order Annexure P-4 dated October 2, 1984.
.
In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition is allowed and the State Government is directed to equate Coaches with the District Sports Officers for the purpose of pay scale and the petitioners who were Coaches be granted the same revised pay scale as that of the District Sports Officers from the same date as it was granted to the District Sports Officers. The arrears of the revised pay scale shall be released within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of this order. There will be no order as to costs."
14. The judgment supra even was upheld by a division Bench of that very Court in LPA. The judgment in Ram Phal Thakran's case was followed by a Division Bench of the same High Court in CWP No. 3284 of 1992, titled Teg Singh, Kabaddi Coach and others vs. The State of Haryana and another, which was decided vide judgment dated 18.8.1992. This judgment was assailed in the Apex Court by way of filing petition for Special Leave to appeal (s) No. 8045 of 1993, title State of Haryana & another versus Teg Singh & others. However, the SLP was also dismissed meaning thereby that the judgment in Ram Phal Thakran's and Tej Singh's cases, cited supra, had attained the finality. Consequent upon the law so laid down the Coaches in the State of Punjab and Haryana were also placed under the pay ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2018 22:56:59 :::HCHP 19 scale of `800-1600. The Tribunal, as such, has rightly placed reliance on the judgment cited supra. There is nothing in the .
grounds of appeal as to how learned Tribunal has committed any illegality or irregularity while placing reliance on the judgment in Ram Phal Thakran's and Teg Singh's cases supra. On the other hand, the submission that the Tribunal has erroneously placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1981 SC 561 appear to have been made merely for rejection for the reasons that the point in issue in the present lis is covered by the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ram Phal's case, cited supra, which even was relied upon in Tej Singh's case also and the judgment in Teg Singh's case stood affirmed in the Apex Court also.
15. Now if coming to the factual matrix, as noticed at the outset, in 1980 Recruitment and Promotion Rules Coaches/District Sports Officers had common cadre and even in the same pay scale. Hence, co-ordinate posts. Therefore, there is no justification in making provision of two different scales for these posts later on. There is no intelligible differentia justifying the provisions of two different pay scales i.e. `800-1400 for the posts of District Sports Officers whereas `700-1300 for that of the Coaches which initially were common and under the same pay scale in the 1980 rules. The respondent-State has, therefore, definitely discriminated the category of the writ petitioners by ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2018 22:56:59 :::HCHP 20 making provisions of lower pay scale for them. Learned Tribunal has very appropriately taken note of letter dated 17.11.1984 of .
the Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Youth Services and Sports) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh addressed to Director, Youth Services and Sports, Himachal Pradesh requiring thereby to upgrade the posts of Coaches in the pay scale of `700-1300 as District Sports Officers in the pay scale of `800-1400. Learned Tribunal has also not committed any illegality while taking note of the 1980 Recruitment and Promotion Rules and also the amendment dated 2.11.1979 well before the revision of pay scales while arriving at a conclusion that the coaches and District Sports Officers had a common cadre with an identical pay scale of `300-600. The Coaches, therefore, should have not been discriminated by placing them in the pay scale of `700-1300 instead of `800-1400 in the subsequent revision of pay scales.
16. So far as respondents No. 4 and 5 are concerned, they had joined as Youth Organizers in the newly created department, whereas the writ petitioners were already on the cadre of Coaches, therefore, could have not been treated at par with youth organizers so far as promotion to the post of District Youth Services and Sports Officer is concerned. Not only this, but the scale of respondents No. 4 and 5 being 570-1080 subsequently revised to `1500-2640 is below that of the writ petitioners i.e. `1640-2925. Otherwise also, when the coaches ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2018 22:56:59 :::HCHP 21 and District Sports Officers had a common cadre, therefore, the Coaches cannot be said to be in feeder category for promotion to .
the post of District Youth Services and Sports Officer. Learned Tribunal has also rightly concluded that there cannot be any estoppel against the law/statute and the claim for pay scale is rather recurring cause of action, therefore, the contention to the contrary raised by respondents No. 4 and 5 on this score are not legally sustainable.
17. to For all the reasons hereinabove, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Consequently, the impugned judgment is affirmed. The interim order dated 8.1.2018 passed in CMP No. 8775 of 2017 will also stand vacated.
18. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.
(Dharam Chand Chaudhary), Judge.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
December 07, 2018, Judge.
( vs)
::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2018 22:56:59 :::HCHP