Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ajay Singh & Ors. vs . State Of H.P. & Ors. A/W on 3 January, 2023
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Virender Singh
Ajay Singh & Ors. vs. State of H.P. & Ors. a/w .
connected matters Ex. Pet. No. 90 of 2020 a/w Ex. Pet. No. 91 of 2020, 170 of 2021, CWPOA Nos. 618 of 2019, 3315 of 2020 and 7 of 2021 03.01.2023 Present: Mr. Surinder Prakash Sharma, Vikas Rajput and Mr. Karan Singh Parmar, Advocates, for the respective petitioners.
Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.S. Guleria, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State.
By medium of this execution, the petitioners have sought execution of order dated 1st January, 2013 passed in CWP 10871 of 2012, whereby the petitioners have claimed the benefits of revision of pay scale, directed to be considered within a period of two months and in the light of the decision rendered by this Court in LPA No. 105 of 2010.
It is not in dispute that the respondents have not only considered, but found the case of the petitioners to be duly covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in LPA No. 105 of 2010. However, the claim for arrears and pay have been restricted three years based upon the Government instructions dated 15.12.2011.
The moot question is whether the course was open to the respondents. To say the least, the answer is definitely in the negative. A similar contention was raised by the respondents in LPA No. 105 of 2010 and such contention was specifically negated, as would be evident from a perusal of Para-17 of the judgment, which reads as under:-
::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2023 20:34:29 :::CIS"17. Finally, the learned Advocate General has contended placing reliance on the judgment in Jai Dev .
Gupta vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, AIR 1998 SC 2819 in moulding the relief that the benefits may be limited to three years. We do not think that in the facts and circumstances of the present case that judgment would be of any help to the State. Himachal Pradesh Rajkiya Prathmik Anubandh Adhyapak Sangh had filed the OA before the Tribunal in the year 1999, on 13.7.1999. The pay revision order was issued on 20.1.1998 giving retrospective effect to the revision w.e.f. 1.1.1996. It is pointed out that the Association is the only Association of the contract JBT teachers and that they represent all the JBT teachers appointed on contract basis. No doubt, Rakesh Chand and others approached the Tribunal only in 2008. They are also the members of the Himachal Pradesh Rajkiya Prathmik Anubandh Adhyapak Sangh and other writ petitions are also the members of that Union. Having had their association to take up their cause, it was unnecessary on the part of the other teachers to have filed independent applications before the Tribunal or writ petitions before this Court. The law has been declared by the Court to the effect that the contract JBT teachers would be entitled to the initial of the pay scale attached to the post of JBT appointed on regular basis and revised from time to time."
Of late, this Court is coming across a number of cases, where the departments have been sitting over the judgments either passed by erstwhile Administrative Tribunal or by this Court. This tendency needs to be curbed. Therefore, we direct the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to issue clear cut instructions to all the Departments concerned to ensure that the judgment passed by the Courts are implemented in letter and spirit and are not tinkered with and to further ensure that no person irrespective of his rank and file does not sit over or sit in judgment of this Court or Tribunal.
One such case of overreach was noticed by this Court in execution petition No. 90 of 2022, titled as Megh Ram Panatu vs. State of H.P. & Anr., constraining the Court to pass the following order:-
::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2023 20:34:29 :::CIS"The erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal while allowing the Original Application filed .
by the petitioner has issued the following directions:-
"17. The above discussion brings us to hold that the rejection of the claim of the applicant for promotion as Assistant and thereafter as ETO under 1974 R&P Rules is neither legally tenable nor justified in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as discussed hereinabove.
18. Accordingly, the transferred application is allowed and the applicant is held entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant and further promotion(s), if any, in terms of 1974 R&P Rules with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider his case for such promotion(s) from the due date(s) alongwith consequential benefits, if any, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case not later than 31st March, 2017."
2. r Despite the orders of the Tribunal being clear, the respondents had rejected the representation made by the petitioner for implementing the order by observing as under:- "In this regard, earlier also writ petition 1857 of 2014 wherein Sh. Megh Ram Panatu prayed for release of arrear @9% interest amongst other relief was filed. The aforesaid writ petition was decided on 26-03-2014. Thereafter vide this office order 27-05-2017 the petitioner's pay was fixed with the directions to restrict the arrear from 3 years prior to date of claim /petition/representation i.e. 23-03-2014. This office order dated 27-05-2017 has not been challenged by the petitioner and the same has attained finality.
Furthermore, in compliance to the Hon'ble HPAT of HP orders dated 16-11-2016 in TA No. 4110/2015 and consequent promotion to the post of Sr. Assistant, Supdt. Gr-II and ETO w.e.f. 22-07-1994, 20-02-2006 & 10-07-2017 vide this office letter No. 2-16/82-EXN-H- Estt-20097-99 dated 10-07-2017 and HP Government notification No. EXN-B(1)-9/2017 dated 04-08- 2018, the salary of the Petitioner was fixed vide this office letter no. 1-65/77-EXN-H-Estt.-34872- 75 dated 12-12- 2018.
Consequently, payment of arrear amounting to Rs. 1,41,527/- has been made to him as per instructions of the F.D bearing No.FIN(PR)-B(7)- 16/98- III (Agriculture) dated 15-12-2011 restricting the arrears to three years prior to the date of filing the petition. The orders of pay fixation dated 18-09-2020 which were kept in abeyance pending clarification from your side, have been withdrawn forthwith being issued in contravention by the instructions of Finance Department ibid, dated 15-12-2011. The arrears amounting to Rs.1,41,527/- has been received by Sh. Megh Ram Panatu without any protest or objection(s) whatsoever."
3. We are not only surprised, but rather shocked with the manner in which Commissioner of Taxes and Excise has sat over the judgment passed by the erstwhile Tribunal. The erstwhile Tribunal while ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2023 20:34:29 :::CIS allowing the petition had not restricted the payment of arrears in favour of the petitioner. Once that be so, .
obviously, the respondents have no business to sit over the judgment of the Tribunal. If at all the respondents were aggrieved by the order, then they would have taken the lawful recourse, but in not event could they have sat over the judgment passed by the competent Court/Tribunal.
4. In the given facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to implement the orders passed by the Tribunal before the next date of hearing or else remain present in the Court to answer the charges that may be framed against them under the Contempt of Courts' Act. List on 12th December, 2022."
In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to comply with the judgment passed by this Court in letter and spirit by paying the entire arrears to all the petitioners within a period of six weeks from today.
Now to come up for compliance on 28.03.2023.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Virender Singh) Judge January 03, 2023 (Vinod) ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2023 20:34:29 :::CIS