Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Executive Engineer, Hppwd vs . Sonki Ram on 22 March, 2022
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Chander Bhusan Barowalia
.
The Executive Engineer, HPPWD vs. Sonki Ram CMP(M) No. 627/2021 A 22.3.2022 Present: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General, Mr. Vinod Thakur, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Yudhbir Singh Thakur, Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Dy. Advocates General and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, for the applicant-appellant.
Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, for the respondent. r Rejoinder stands filed, wherein delay in filing of the appeal is sought to be explained in the following terms:-
"The copy of judgment has been received in the office of the Executive Engineer HPPWD, Division Baijnath vide Ld. Advocate General State of H.P. office letter No. 21597 dated 19.08.2019 which was further forwarded to the Assistant Engineer HPPWD, Sub-Division Baijnath for taking further necessary action vide Executive Engineer Baijnath Division office letter No. 8509-11 dated 02.09.2019. The Executive Engineer Baijnath Division HPPWD, Baijnath sent the case to Superintending Engineer 5th Circle, HPPWD, Palampur vide office letter No. 17222-23 dated 20.11.2019 and further forwarded to the Chief Engineer (KZ) HPPWD, Dharamshala vide letter No. 7510-11 dated 16.12.2019. The Chief Engineer (KZ), HPPWD, Dharamshala forwarded the case to the Engineer-in-
Chief HPPWD, Shimla vide his office letter No. 940-42 dated 26.12.2019, which was further referred to the Principal Secretary (PW) to the Govt. of H.P. vide letter NO. 7877-80 dated 29.01.2020 and legal opinion in the case has been received from the Principal Secretary (PW) to the Govt. of H.P. vide letter dated 28.02.2020 which was conveyed to Executive Engineer Baijnath vide Engineer-in-Chief HPPWD, Shimla letter NO. 8390-
85 dated 04.03.2020. There was complete lockdown in Nation. Thereafter the LPA was prepared & drafted in consultation with Deputy Distt. Attorney Kangra O/O Chief Engineer (KZ), HPPWD Dharamshala and was got vetted from the office of Ld. Advocate General State of H.P."
However, we are not at all satisfied by the explanation offered by the applicant, rather, we are of the considered view that the applicant has unnecessarily been tossing the file in the hierarchy order, which in the given facts and circumstances of the case is totally unwarranted.
If a decision is eventually to be taken by the Principal Secretary (PW), then why should the file be tossed from the ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2022 20:10:44 :::CIS .
office of the Executive Engineer to the Assistant Engineer, then the Executive Engineer, then the Superintending Engineer, then the Chief Engineer and lastly to the Engineer-in-Chief without there being any suggestion, input or contribution at their levels. This practice of sending file is not peculiar, to this department alone, as this Court has repeatedly come across similar kind of procedure adopted and followed by the other Department(s), which is not only unwarranted, but also time consuming, causing unnecessary delay in filing the appeal(s).
One fails to understand that when file could straightaway moved through Principal Secretary (PW), why it was moved through six different agencies. The matter requires to be re-looked to ensure that the procedures are streamlined to make it simpler so as to cut unnecessary delays and for the better work management. This will not only considerably reduce the delay in filing the cases including the appeals, but would also reduce the unnecessary and unwarranted man hours being put by the various agencies only because the hierarchal system of administration. The Additional Chief Secretary (Personnel) to look into the matter and issue necessary directions for streamlining the procedure keeping in view the observations made above.
Let needful be done within six weeks. List on 17.05.2022.
( Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge ( Chander Bhusan Barowalia ) Judge 22nd March, 2022 (CS/raman) ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2022 20:10:44 :::CIS