Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P. & Others vs Dev Raj Sharma on 18 April, 2018
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH
SHIMLA
LPA No.517 of 2011
.
Date of decision: 18.04.2018
State of H.P. & Others ....Appellants-Respondents
Versus
Dev Raj Sharma ....Respondent-Petitioner
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting ?1
For the Appellants: Mr.Ashok Sharma, Advocate General
r with Mr.Ranjan Sharma, Mr.Adarsh
K.Sharma, and Ms.Reeta Goswami,
Additional Advocate Generals and
Mr.J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate
General.
For the Respondent: Mr.Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.
Per Sandeep Sharma,J.:
Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the judgment dated 07.04.2011 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No.10126 of 2008, whereby direction was issued to the appellants-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the `respondents') to pay the petitioner-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner') salary of O.T. w.e.f. 22.6.2000 alongwith increments, within a period of two months, respondents have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for setting aside the judgment passed by learned Single Judge, as referred hereinabove. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 22:53:41 :::HCHP 2
2. Perusal of record made available to this Court suggests that petitioner, who was appointed as O.T. in District Lahaul & Spiti w.e.f. 1986, had filed Original Application .
bearing No.2772 of 2000 in the Learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, seeking therein direction to respondents-State to appoint him on batchwise basis from the date persons junior to him have been appointed, with all consequential benefits, within a period of one month. Learned Tribunal vide order dated 10.5.2001 allowed the aforesaid O.A. preferred by the petitioner and passed following orders:-
"In view of this position the respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicants for appointment on batchwise basis from the date persons junior to them have been appointed, with all consequential benefits, within a period of one month. The original application is disposed of."
3. Aforesaid judgment passed by learned Tribunal was not laid challenge in the superior Court of law and, as such, the same attained finality qua the parties to the lis. However, fact remains that despite passing of aforesaid order dated 10.5.2001, respondents failed to offer appointment to the petitioner on batchwise basis, as a consequence of which he was compelled to file another O.A. bearing No.218/2003, which subsequently came to be registered as CWP(T) No.10126/2008. In the aforesaid O.A. petitioner sought direction to the respondents to give him salary of O.T. w.e.f. ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 22:53:41 :::HCHP 3 22.6.2000 with incremental arrear w.e.f. 22.6.2001 including all consequential benefits in terms of Office Order No.EDN- LSP(Estt)-B-04/97-2335-37, (Annexure PA annexed alongwith .
O.A.). Consequently, learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 7.4.2011 allowed the aforesaid petition and directed the respondents to pay the petitioner salary of O.T. w.e.f. 22.6.2000 alongwith increments, within a period of two months.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
5. Having carefully perused impugned judgment dated 7.4.2011, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by learned Single Judge. It is not in dispute that order dated 10.5.2001 passed in O.A. No.2772/2000, wherein respondents were directed to consider the case of the applicant-petitioner for appointment on batchwise basis from the date persons junior to him were appointed with all consequential benefits within a period of one month, attained finality because no appeal, whatsoever, was filed against the same by the respondents-State. Since vide aforesaid judgment passed by learned Tribunal, petitioner was held entitled to all consequential benefits, learned Single Judge rightly held that the applicant-petitioner was entitled to arrears of salary from the date when his juniors were appointed, otherwise also respondents-State, in compliance to the aforesaid order dated 10.5.2001 passed by learned ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 22:53:41 :::HCHP 4 Tribunal, offered regular appointment to the petitioner against vacant post of identical scale of O.T.(Shastri) in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8100, but while doing so, other benefits were given .
on notional basis from the date when his juniors were appointed or had joined their services, which action of respondents is certainly not in accordance with the judgment passed by learned Tribunal in O.A. No.2772/2000.
6. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that since no appeal, whatsoever, was filed against the aforesaid judgment passed by the learned Tribunal, it was not open for the respondents to implement the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal in piecemeal, rather it was incumbent upon the respondents-State to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner while offering him appointment against the regular post of O.T. Shastri and, as such, learned Single Judge, while allowing the petition filed by the petitioner, rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to arrears of salary from the date his juniors were appointed and the principle of 'non work no pay' is not attracted in the present case.
7. Leaving everything aside, it stands duly proved on record that the petitioner was initially offered appointment as O.T. w.e.f. 1986, but he was only offered regular appointment after passing of judgment dated 10.5.2001 in O.A. bearing No.2772/2000, having been filed by him, whereas, persons juniors to him were not only appointed on batchwise basis, ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 22:53:41 :::HCHP 5 rather they were given all benefits attached to the post in question and, as such, there appears to be no infirmity and illegality in the findings returned by the learned Single Judge .
that principle of 'no work no pay' shall not be attracted in the present case because the petitioner was prevented from discharging his duties due to inaction of the respondents, whereby the persons junior to him were appointed on batchwise basis and the petitioner was left out.
8. Consequently, in view of discussion made hereinabove, we see no infirmity and illegality in the judgment passed by learned Single Judge, which is apparently based upon proper appreciation of material available on record and as such, the same is upheld. Therefore, this appeal fails and is dismissed, accordingly.
9. All interim orders are vacated and all the pending miscellaneous applications are disposed of.
(Sanjay Karol)
Acting Chief Justice
April 18, 2018 (Sandeep Sharma)
(aks) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2018 22:53:41 :::HCHP