Himachal Pradesh High Court
Bishambher Negi S/O Sh. Sukh Lal vs State Of H.P. Through The Principal on 14 September, 2022
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Virender Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
.
ON THE 14th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
Between:-
r to
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2277 OF 2022.
BISHAMBHER NEGI S/O SH. SUKH LAL
[AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS] R/O V&P.O.,
TEHSIL SANGALA, DISTRICT KINNAUR,
[HP].
.....PETITIONER.
(BY SH. Y.K. THAKUR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF H.P. THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY (PWD) TO THE GOVERNMENT
OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA-
171002.
2. ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, HPPWD, NIRMAN
BHAWAN, NIGAM VIHAR, SHIMLA-
171002.
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF ENGINEER, 11TH
CIRCLE, HPPWD RAMPUR BUSHAHR.
......RESPONDENTS.
(BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE
GENERAL WITH SH. RAJINDER DOGRA,
::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2022 20:02:44 :::CIS
2
SENIOR ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERAL, SH. VINOD THAKUR, SH. SHIV
PAL MANHANS, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
.
GENERALS, SH. BHUPINDER THAKUR,
DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SH.
RAJAT CHAUHAN, LAW OFFICER)
________________________________________________________________
This petition coming on for admission after notice
this day, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, passed
the following:
ORDER
The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-
"a. Quash and set aside the impugned rejection order Annexure P-1.
b. Directions to the respondents to pay the due salary of four months to the tune of Rs.72,905/- along with the interest @ 12% p.a."
2. The undisputed facts are that post superannuation as 'Circle Head Draughtsman' from the office of the Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Rampur Bushehr in the year 2017, the petitioner was re-engaged/ re-appointed as Circle Head Draughtsman vide Office Order dated 08.07.2017 for one year i.e. with effect from 01.02.2017 to 31.01.2018. Following the appointment order, the petitioner submitted his joining report with respondent No.3 on 15.02.2017.
::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2022 20:02:44 :::CIS 33. According to the petitioner, his salary was ordered to be drawn against the higher vacant post in terms .
of the unequivocal order dated 27.03.2017. But, the respondents instead of paying salary of Rs.37,852/- paid only a sum of Rs.16,197/- per month to the petitioner thereby causing a financial loss of Rs.21,655/- per month to him. Thus, in totality, a sum of Rs.72,905/- is due from the respondents for a period of 15.02.2017 to 26.06.2017, hence, this petition.
4. The respondents contested this petition by filing reply wherein the factum of re-employment of the petitioner has not been denied. However, it has been submitted that the matter with regard to the salary of the petitioner had been referred to the Government and the Superintending Engineer in the meanwhile vide letter dated 05.04.2017 was directed that the salary of the petitioner may be drawn against any equivalent/higher post lying vacant in the Rampur Circle. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed in Rampur Circle with the post of Draughtsman that was lying vacant and was also released salary amounting to Rs.2,87,704/- only till the final decision of the Government. The Government, in turn, in its letter ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2022 20:02:44 :::CIS 4 dated 27.05.2017 conveyed the sanction/approval for re-
employment of the petitioner with the direction that in .
case the post of Circle Head Draughtsman in 11 th Circle HPPWD Rampur is lying vacant, the petitioner may be re-employed against vacant post of Circle Head Draughtsman in Rampur Circle and his salary may be drawn accordingly.
5. Since, the Court was not clear as to whether the claim of the petitioner had been admitted or not by the respondents, therefore, it on 18.07.2022 passed the following order:-
"From perusal of the reply filed by the respondents with regard to the claim of the petitioner, it is not clear, as to whether, the respondents admits the same or are vehemently denying. In such a situation, let fresh supplementary reply be filed by the respondents within three weeks.
List on 8.8.2022."
6. In compliance to the aforesaid order, the respondents filed a supplementary affidavit. However, again this Court was not in a position to appreciate as to what exactly the respondents wanted to convey through this ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2022 20:02:44 :::CIS 5 affidavit, as is evident from order dated 17.08.2022 which reads as under:-
.
"Affidavit in compliance to the directions dated 08.08.2022 has been filed in the open Court which is made part of the records. However, again we are not in a position to appreciate as to what exactly the respondents want to convey through this affidavit. Therefore, let respondents take clear-cut instructions for the next date of hearing.
r List on 31.08.2022."
7. Left with no option, we proceeded to hear the matter and find that the respondents have infact conceded that the petitioner upon his re-employment had been posted as the Head Draughtsman and, therefore, was required to be paid salary at the rate of Rs.37,852/- per month instead of Rs.16,197/- per month.
8. Once that be so, obviously, we have no hesitation in allowing this petition. Ordered accordingly. The respondents are directed to pay the differential amount of Rs.72,905/- (supra) to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay the interest on the said amount.
::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2022 20:02:44 :::CIS 69. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
.
10. For compliance, to come up on 19.10.2022.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge 14th September, 2022.
(krt)
r to (Virender Singh)
Judge
::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2022 20:02:44 :::CIS