Himachal Pradesh High Court
Surat Singh vs State Of H.P. & Others on 23 February, 2015
Bench: Sanjay Karol, P.S. Rana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWPs No. 773, 774, 775, 776, 777,
807, 808, 809, 810, 811, 812, 813,
.
814, 815, 816, 817 and 818 of 2015.
Decided on: 23.2.2015
1. CWP No. 773 of 2015
Surat Singh ....Petitioner
versus
State of H.P. & others. ....Respondents.
2. CWP No. 774 of 2015
Rajesh Kumar ....Petitioner
versus
State of H.P. & others. ....Respondents.
3. CWP No. 775 of 2015
Om Parkash ....Petitioner
versus
State of H.P. & others. ....Respondents.
4. CWP No. 776 of 2015
Surjeet Singh ....Petitioner
versus
State of H.P. & others. ....Respondents.
5. CWP No. 777 of 2015
Ashok Kumar ....Petitioner
versus
State of H.P. & others. ....Respondents.
6. CWP No. 807 of 2015
Roop Singh ....Petitioner
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:37:52 :::HCHP
2
versus
State of H.P. & others. ....Respondents.
7. CWP No. 808 of 2015
.
Iiam Deen ....Petitioner
versus
State of H.P. & others. ....Respondents.
8. CWP No. 809 of 2015
Ramesh Chand ....Petitioner
versus
State of H.P. & others. ....Respondents.
9. CWP No. 810 of 2015
Ramesh Kumar ....Petitioner
r versus
State of H.P. & others. ....Respondents.
10. CWP No. 811 of 2015
Bharat Bhushan ....Petitioner
versus
State of H.P. & others. ....Respondents.
11. CWP No. 812 of 2015
Durga Dutt ....Petitioner
versus
State of H.P. & others. ....Respondents.
12. CWP No. 813 of 2015
Raj Kumar ....Petitioner
versus
State of H.P. & others. ....Respondents.
13. CWP No. 814 of 2015
Het Ram ....Petitioner
versus
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:37:52 :::HCHP
3
State of H.P. & others. ....Respondents.
.
14. CWP No. 815 of 2015
Krishna Nand ....Petitioner
versus
State of H.P. & others. ....Respondents.
15. CWP No. 815 of 2015
Prem Pal ....Petitioner
versus
State of H.P. & others. ....Respondents.
16.
CWP No. 817 of 2015
Madan Lal ....Petitioner
versus
State of H.P. & others. ....Respondents.
17. CWP No. 818 of 2015
Ashok Kumar ....Petitioner
versus
State of H.P. & others. ....Respondents.
___________________________________________________________
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.S. Rana, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting or not?1 No
For the petitioners: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate
General with Mr. B.S. Parmar and
Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Additional
1
Whether local reporters` of the newspapers are allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:37:52 :::HCHP
4
Advocates General and Mr. Vikram
Thakur, Deputy Advocate General.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanjay Karol, Judge (Oral)
.
Learned counsel for the petitioners invites our attention to the decision, rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 9519 of 2014, titled as Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 5.1.2015, which reads as under:-
"It is contended that the writ petitioners are working as Laboratory Attendants in Education Department, were placed in the pay scale of ` 5910-20200 plus Grade Pay as Rs. 1900/- in terms of the pay revision w.e.f. 1st January, 2006, alongwith other similarly situated employees. But in the year 2012, pay scales were revised, which were granted to the other similarly situated employees, who were granted the similar pay scale in the year 2006, was not granted to the writ petitioners w.e.f. 1st October, 2012, i.e. ` 10300-34800 + ` 3200 as Grade Pay after two years. Further contended that the action of the respondents is discriminatory and at the cost of the writ petitioners, who will stagnate till their retirement in the said grade. The writ petitioners have made representations, but without any fruitful results, the respondents have turned deaf ears and failed to redress the grievances of the writ petitioners. Hence, the writ petition.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:37:52 :::HCHP 5
2. In CWP No. 9519 of 2014, the writ petitioners have given the details how they stand discriminated and how the action of the respondents is bad and illegal.
.
3. Issue Notice in CWPs No. 9910, 9911, 9973, 9979 to 9981 of 2014. Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Additional Advocate General, waives notice on behalf of the respondents-State.
4. Respondents-State have filed replies in some of the writ petitions and some of the writ petitions came to be admitted.
5. After noticing that the facts and question of law involved in all the writ petitions are similar, Registry was directed to list all the cases before the Court today.
6. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we deem it proper to dispose of all these writ petitions with a command to the respondents to examine the cases of the writ petitioners in light of the averments contained in the writ petitions and make a decision within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.
7. It goes without saying that in case decision is made against the writ petitioners, they are at liberty to challenge the same.
8. The writ petitions are disposed of, as indicated hereinabove, alongwith all pending applications."
2. Learned counsel further submits that petitioners shall be content if present petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms, as petitioners are similarly situated.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:37:52 :::HCHP 63. As such, present petitions are disposed of, making the directions issued in Rakesh Kumar's (supra) applicable mutatis mutandis also in the present cases. Decision by the .
authorities be positively taken within a period of three months.
4. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Sanjay Karol)
Judge
23rd February, 2015 (P.S. Rana)
(kck) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:37:52 :::HCHP