Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dile Ram And Another vs State Of H.P. And Others on 6 October, 2023
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4667 of 2023 Date of Decision: 06.10.2023 .
_______________________________________________________ Dile Ram and another .......Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others ... Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 of For the Petitioner: Mr. Hirdaya Ram, Mr. R.K.Bansal, and Mr. Suresh Saini, Advocates.
rt For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.
_________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 29.07.2021, whereby representation dated 4.3.2020 (Annexure P-8) having been filed by the petitioners, praying therein to review the promotion/appointment orders dated 2.12.2019 from Non-Tehsildar categories to HPAS on regular basis, came to be rejected, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for following reliefs:-
"i). To quash and set aside impugned non speaking order dated 29.07.2021 (Annexure P-9).1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2023 20:39:58 :::CIS 2ii) To quash and set aside impugned notification dated 02.12.2019(Annexure P-7) qua the petitioners and direct the respondent No.1 to order the regular promotion of the petitioners w.e.f. the year 2010 as .
recommended by the DPC dated 4.11.2011 (Annexure P-1) and dated 14.11.2019 (Annexure P-
5).
iii) To quash and set aside noting N-35 dated 23.07.2021 (Annexure P-10).
iv) To quash and set aside office order dated of 27.01.2020 (Annexure P-10) regarding fixation of the pay of the petitioner No.2 and direct the rt respondent No.1, 2 and 4 to order the fixation of the pay of the petitioner No.2 giving the benefit from the year 2010 in view of the recommendation of the DPC dated 4.4.2011 (Annexure P-1) and 14.11.2019 (Annexure P-5)".
2. Pursuant to the notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents No.1, 2 and 4 have filed reply, wherein attempt has been made to justify the action of the respondents inasmuch as petitioners have been granted promotion to HPAS cadre from 2011 batch, whereas they were recommended to be promoted to HPAS by the Departmental Promotion Committee for the posts available in the year 2010.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid action of the respondents, petitioners before filing petition at hand, approached Additional Chief Secretary(Personnel) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to review the promotion/appointment orders by way of ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2023 20:39:58 :::CIS 3 representation dated 4.3.2020. Perusal of the representation clearly reveals that petitioners herein gave therein complete details with regard to recommendation made by Departmental Promotion .
Committee dated 4.4.2011 as well as review Departmental Promotion Committee held on 14.11.2019, whereby admittedly petitioners were ordered to be recommended for promotion to the post of HPAS available in the year 2010, but interestingly aforesaid authority vide of order dated 29.07.2021(Annexure P-9) rejected the representation without assigning any reason. Perusal of order dated 29.07.2021, rt clearly reveals that authority while considering the representation failed to take note of contents of the representation as well as record of Departmental Promotion Committee, rather by two lines order expressed inability of the department to accede to the request of the petitioners for regular appointment from the date of the adhoc promotion in the HPAS cadre.
4. Having carefully perused the aforesaid order, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that authority while considering the representation, failed to apply its mind, as result thereof, cryptic order shorn of any reasoning came to be passed, which is otherwise not sustainable in the eye of law. Similarly, order dated 29.07.2021 nowhere suggests that opportunity of being heard was ever afforded ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2023 20:39:58 :::CIS 4 to the representationists and as such, otherwise also, order being passed in violation of principal of natural justice is not sustainable.
5. Consequently, in view of the above, order dated .
29.07.2021 (Annexure P-9) is quashed and set-aside and Additional Chief Secretary (Personnel) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh is directed to decide the representation dated 4.3.2020 (Annexure P-
8) afresh expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks.
of Needless to say authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order would go through the entire record and afford an rt opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if they still remain aggrieved.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 06,2023 (shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2023 20:39:58 :::CIS