Himachal Pradesh High Court
Surinder Kumar vs Anjori Kapoor And Others on 10 December, 2018
Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No. 1896 of 2017
Decided on: 10.12.2018
__________________________________________________________________
.
Surinder Kumar
.....Petitioner.
Versus
Anjori Kapoor and others
......Respondents.
__________________________________________________________________
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
1 Whether approved for reporting? No
______________________________________________________
For the petitioner: M/s Sunil Mohan Goel and Paras
Dhaulta, Advocates.
For respondent No. 1: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate
with Ms. Nishi Goel, Advocate.
For respondent No. 2: Mr. Narender Guleria and Mr. Vikas
Rathore, Additional Advocates
General, with Mr. J.S. Guleria,
Deputy Advocate General.
For respondent No. 3: Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate.
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. (oral)
In this writ petition, judgment dated 13th July, 2017, passed by learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, in T.A. No. 601 of 2015, titled Smt. Anjori Kapoor vs. State of H.P. and others, has been sought to be quashed 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2018 22:55:30 :::HCHP -2-and set aside by way of invoking the power of judicial review vested in this Court. The operative part of the impugned judgment reads as follows:
.
"13. Consequently, the transferred application is allowed and the applicant is permitted to make a representation for up-gradation of her ACRs to 1st respondent, through the Secretary (Housing) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, if she so chooses, within one month and the said representation will be decided within two months thereafter. If her entries are upgraded, the applicant shall be considered for promotion retrospectively by the Departmental Promotion Committee within three months thereafter and if the applicant gets selected for promotion retrospectively, she should be given benefits notionally till the joining."
2. It is seen that the learned Tribunal has not adverted to the contentions of the parties on merits and rather left it open to respondent No. 1 herein (Smt. Anjori Kapoor) to make representation for upgradation of entries in her service record to 1st respondent, the Secretary (Housing) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh within one month from the date of the judgment. The 1st respondent was directed to consider and decide the representation, if so made by her within two months thereafter.
Also that in the event of the entries are upgraded she was to be considered for promotion retrospectively by the Departmental Promotion Committee within three months. In the event of her ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2018 22:55:30 :::HCHP -3- selection for promotion retrospectively, she was to be given all consequential benefits, of course notionally.
3. The learned counsel representing 3rd respondent has .
produced before us copy of order dated 17.08.2017 passed by 1st respondent in terms of the judgment under challenge. As a matter of fact, ACRs of the applicant/respondent, Smt. Anjori Kapoor, for the years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 have been upgraded 'very good' from 'good', however, convening the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee has been ordered to be stayed by this Court vide order dated 23.08.2017, passed in CMP No. 6989 of 2017. Being so, the impugned judgment stood already implemented partly.
4. The petitioner herein has a remedy to assail the order ibid passed by 1st respondent by resorting to the remedy available to him in accordance with law. Therefore, leaving it open to him to assail the order passed by 1st respondent before the competent forum within two weeks, the writ petition is disposed of. In the event of the liberty so granted is availed by the petitioner within the time granted, the order passed by 1st respondent shall remain stayed for a week thereafter enabling him to obtain appropriate interim orders, against its implementation. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all contentions & legal questions as he raised in this writ petition in the event of the remedy, if any, available ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2018 22:55:30 :::HCHP -4- against the order passed by 1st respondent, consequent upon the impugned judgment is availed by him.
5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the .
pending application(s), if any.
(Dharam Chand Chaudhary) Judge (Chander Bhusan Barowalia) Judge December 10, 2018 (virender) ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2018 22:55:30 :::HCHP