Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others vs Shri Kashmir Singh Thakur And Others on 28 March, 2016
Bench: Chief Justice, Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
LPA No. 172 of 2011
Decided on: 28.03.2016
State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Appellants.
of
Versus
Shri Kashmir Singh Thakur and others ...Respondents.
Coram
rt
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the appellants: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate
General, with Mr. Romesh Verma &
Mr. M.A. Khan, Additional Advocate
Generals, and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy
Advocate General.
For the respondents: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate,
with Ms. Nishi Goel, Advocate, for
respondents No. 4, 7, 9, 10, 13 to 15
and 19 to 28.
Mr. C.S. Thakur, Advocate, for
respondents No. 16 (a) to 16 (c).
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:59:10 :::HCHP
2
Respondents No. 1 to 3, 5, 6, 8 (a) to 8
(d), 11, 12 (a) to 12 (d), 17, 18 and 29
already exparte.
.
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. (Oral)
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 30th April, 2010, made by the Writ Court/ of learned Single Judge in CWP (T) No. 5389 of 2008, titled as Kashmir Singh and others versus State of Himachal rt Pradesh and others, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitionersrespondents herein came to be disposed of with a direction to the appellantswrit respondents to frame a scheme for providing more promotional avenues (for short "the impugned judgment").
2. The writ petitionersrespondents filed Original Application and have sought the following reliefs amongst the others on the grounds taken in the memo of the Original Application:
"(i) That in view of the facts and circumstances, stated here in above, it is most respectfully prayed that the impugned notification AnnexureA5 A6 may be quashed and set aside and the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:59:10 :::HCHP 3 Respondents may be directed to include the category of Senior Scale Stenographer to the post of Superintendent GradeIV and the .
category of Personal Assistant to the post of Superintendent GradeI or in the alternate the Respondent Department may be directed to create the posts of Personal Assistant and to give benefit to the applicants against these posts from the date Senior of Assistants who joined the service as Senior Assistant with applicants No. I to 16 have been promoted to the posts of Superintendent GradeII and GradeI respectively. The respondents may rt further be directed to promote applicants No. 17 to 29 as Senior Scale Stenographers from the date these posts were vacated by the applicants No. 1 to 16 on further promotion with all consequential benefits."
3. The appellantswrit respondents resisted the same by the medium of reply.
4. It is a moot question - whether the Court can issue writ of mandamus commanding the State authorities or its instrumentalities to frame a policy/scheme?
5. This Court has already dealt with the issue in a batch of LPAs, LPA No. 495 of 2012, titled as H.P. Khadi & Village Industries Board versus Sh. Haria Ram and others, being the lead case, decided on 28th October, 2015, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:59:10 :::HCHP 4 and held that the Court cannot direct the State to frame a policy or scheme. Further held that at the best, the Court .
can direct the State to consider for framing a policy or scheme.
6. In view of the above read with the facts of the of present case, we deem it proper to modify the impugned judgment by providing that the writ respondents may rt consider to frame the policy/scheme.
7. Having said so, the appeal is disposed of and the impugned judgment is modified, as indicated hereinabove.
Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
(Mansoor Ahmad Mir) Chief Justice (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge March 28, 2016 ( rajni ) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:59:10 :::HCHP