Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Ajeet Kumar Sharma on 9 August, 2021
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1
IN HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 74 OF 2021
Between :-
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
THROUGH THE ADITIONAL
CHIEF SECRETARY (FORESTS)
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH.
2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS (HoFF) H.P. FOREST
DEPARTMENT, TALLAND, SHIMLA.
3. CHIEF EXCUTIVE OFFICER, H.P.
ZOOS AND CONSERVATION
BREEDING SOCIETY-CUM-ADDITIONAL
PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS (WILDLIFE), SHIMLA.
4. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
WILDLIFE DIVISION, HAMIRPUR.
5. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
UNA FOREST DIVISION, UNA, H.P.
6. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
H.P. ZOO CONSERVATION BREEDING
SOCIETY-CUM-DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
ZOO AND RESCUE DIVISION, SHIMLA, H.P.
...APPELLANTS
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:50:57 :::CIS
2
(BY MR. ASHOK SHARMA,
ADVOCATE GENERAL, WITH
MR. RANJAN SHARMA, MR. VIKAS
RATHORE, MS. RITTA GOSWAMI,
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERALS
AND MS. SEEMA SHARMA,
.
DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
AND
1. AJEET KUMAR SHARMA, S/O
SH. AMAR NATH SHARMA,
VILLAGE & P.O. DUGHLI,
TEHSIL BHORANJ, HAMIRPUR,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS DRIVER
WITH DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
WILDLIFE DIVISION HAMIRPUR,
MSC SASTAR, HAMIRPUR, H.P.
2. DINESH KUMAR, S/O LATE
SH. DAULAT RAM, VILLAGE & P.O.
PATTI, TEHSIL PALAMPUR,
DISTRICT KANGRA, PRESENTLY
WORKING AS DRIVER WITH
RANGE OFFICER GOPALPUR,
MSC WILDLIFE DIVISION HAMIRPUR,
H.P.
3. DINESH KUMAR, S/O SH. BHAGI RATH
SHARMA, VILLAGE JHALERA, P.O.
RAISARI, TEHSIL & DISTRICT
UNA, PRESENTLY WORKING
AS DRIVER MSC BOUL, WILDLIFE
DIVISION HAMIRPUR, H.P.
4. DAULAT RAM S/O SH. DILU RAM,
VILLAGE & P.O. GALEHA,
TEHSIL KOTKHAI, DISTRICT SHIMLA,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS DRIVER
IN DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
WILDLIFE DIVISION, SHIMLA, H.P.
...RESPONDENTS
____________________________________________________
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:50:57 :::CIS
3
This Appeal coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, delivered the following :
JUDGMENT
.
The appellant-State is aggrieved of the judgment passed by leaned Single Judge directing it to give similar treatment to the writ petitioners in respect of payment of wages/scale as was given to the two other similarly situated employees.
2. One of the grievances of the writ petitioners/present respondents before the learned writ Court was that they alongwith Lalit Kumar and Dinesh Kumar were discharging the duties of drivers in respondent No. 6 Society on contract basis. Lalit Kumar and Dinesh Kumar were being paid wages higher than was being paid to the writ petitioners. Denial of higher wages to the writ petitioners was asserted to be in violation of principles of equal pay for equal work.
3. Before the learned Single Bench, the appellants admitted that the two named drivers were given regular scale vide office order dated 30.11.2018. The grant of regular scale to the aforesaid two drivers was sought to be justified on the basis of a decision taken in the meeting of governing body of respondent No. 6 held on 04.08.2018 for granting regular scale as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules to all the employees of ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:50:57 :::CIS 4 respondent No. 6 on completion of seven years of continuous service. It was on this basis that the learned Single Judge held that as a necessary corollary the writ petitioners on completion of seven years of service were also entitled to the benefit of decision .
taken by the governing body of respondent No. 6 on 04.08.2018.
Non-extension of same benefit to the petitioners was held to be arbitrary.
This reasoning, in view of admitted facts, is in accordance with law. Learned Additional Advocate General could not point out even a single ground for assailing the judgment.
The direction of learned Single Judge to the appellants to pay the same salary/scale to the writ petitioners on completion of seven years of service as is being paid by them to the aforesaid two drivers on the basis of decision taken by the governing body on 04.08.2018, does not call for any interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any.
Before parting, we may note a factual submission made by learned Additional Advocate General during hearing of the case to the effect that subsequent to the judgment passed by learned Single Judge, the benefit of regular pay scale given to Lalit Kumar and Dinesh Kumar has been withdrawn. It was further submitted that the action of withdrawing the benefit has been assailed by the two affected employees in separate writ petition, ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:50:57 :::CIS 5 wherein interim order has been passed staying the withdrawal of pay scales. It goes without saying that since the benefit of regular scale was granted to the present writ petitioners under the impugned judgment on the anology of similar scale having been .
given to Lalit Kumar and Dinesh Kumar, therefore, decisions qua these two drivers shall also be applicable to the present writ petitioners as well.
( Ravi Malimath ) Acting Chief Justice 9th August, 2021 (K) ( Jyotsna Rewal Dua ) Judge ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:50:57 :::CIS