Himachal Pradesh High Court
Neelam Sharma vs Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust & Others on 1 April, 2017
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
CWP No.11017 of 2011
Date of decision: 01.04.2017
.
Neelam Sharma ....Petitioner
Versus
Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust & Others ....Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
of
Whether approved for reporting ?1 Yes.
For the Petitioner: Mr.J.R. Sharma vice Mr.Bhuvnesh
Sharma, Advocate.
rt
For the Respondents: Mr.K.D. Sood, Senior Advocate
with Mr.Sanjeev Sood, Advocate.
Sandeep Sharma,J.
Petitioner, being aggrieved with the denial of revised pay scale of Rs.8000-13500/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996, invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court by way of filing instant petition seeking therein following main relief:
"(i) That the Respondents may very kindly be directed to grant the revised pay scale of Rs.8000/- to 13500/- to the Petitioner w.e.f.
01/01/1996 to 15/03/1999 and refix her pay accordingly with all consequential benefits and the arrears accrued there under may very kindly be ordered to be paid with interest, as allowed by this Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 31/10/2008 in C.W.P. No.274/2008 titled as "Karan Singh Rana & Ors. v. State of H.P. & Ors."
2. Facts, as emerged from the record, are that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in English in Baba 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:06:19 :::HCHP 2Balak Nath Degree College, Chakmoh (hereinafter referred to as 'College') by Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust, Deotsidh (hereinafter referred to as 'Temple Trust') vide appointment .
letter dated 10.10.1995 in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 + usual allowances (Annexure P-1). Petitioner continued to serve aforesaid College till 15.03.1999, whereafter she applied for extraordinary leave for three years on his of selection in the Education Department of Himachal Pradesh as Lecturer in English. It also emerge from the record that petitioner left the job from the aforesaid College w.e.f.
rt 15.03.1999 and thereafter never turned up to join her services in the said College. In nutshell, grievance of the petitioner is that since pay scale of Lecturer was revised from Rs.2200-4000 to Rs.8000-13500 w.e.f. 01.01.1996, she was also entitled for same since she had rendered her services in the College till 15.03.1999.
3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner stated that since, despite repeated communications, respondents-College failed to release benefits of revised pay scale in favour of the petitioner, she was compelled to file instant petition seeking therein relief(s) as referred hereinabove. He also invited the attention of this Court to the judgment dated 31.10.2008, passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.274 of 2008, titled: Dr.Karan Singh Rana & Others vs. State of H.P., whereby directions were ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:06:19 :::HCHP 3 issued to respondents College/Trust to release the revised pay scales to the Lecturers working in the College. Learned counsel further stated that since there is no dispute with .
regard to rendering of services by the petitioner in the respondents-College till 15.03.1999, respondents ought to have granted her benefit of revised pay scale w.e.f.
01.01.1996 to 15.03.1999.
of
4. Mr.K.D. Sood, learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Mr.Sanjeev Sood, Advocate, appearing for the respondents, vehemently opposed aforesaid submissions rt having been made by learned counsel representing the petitioner as well as application of Division Bench judgment supra and stated that it will not help to the petitioner because she was not a party in that case, moreover, facts of the case are totally different.
5. Apart from above, Mr.Sood, strenuously argued that the present petition is highly time barred and cannot be entertained, at this belated stage. Mr.Sood, while inviting the attention of this Court to the writ petition filed by the present petitioner, stated that it is an admitted case of the petitioner that she never joined the College after 15.03.1999, whereas she raised demand for release of revised pay scale for the first time by way of instant petition in 2011 i.e. after 12 years. Mr.Sood further stated that there is no document made available on the record by the petitioner suggestive of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:06:19 :::HCHP 4 the fact that in 12 years i.e. from 1999 to 2011, representation, if any, qua the release of revised pay scale was ever made to the respondents and as such present .
petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
6. Mr.Sood also invited the attention of this Court to the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.604 of 2011, titled Karan Singh Pathania vs. State of of H.P. and Others, whereby another Lecturer in English;
namely Karan Singh had filed an appeal against order/judgment passed by learned Single Judge in CWP rt bearing No.8025 of 2010, titled: Karan Singh Pathania vs. State of H.P. whereby his claim for release of revised pay scale was rejected. In the aforesaid background, Mr.Sood prayed that the present petition may be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
8. There is no dispute with regard to appointment of petitioner as a Lecturer in the respondents-College.
Similarly, there is no dispute with regard to services having been rendered by petitioner in the respondents-College in the capacity of Lecturer w.e.f. 10.10.1995 till 15.03.1999, whereafter she herself applied for extraordinary leave for three years. Though pleadings available on record suggests that the pay scale of Lecturer was revised by the respondents ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:06:19 :::HCHP 5 from Rs.2200-4000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996, but this Court was unable to lay its hand to any of the documents made available on record by the petitioner suggestive of the fact .
that representation, if any, was ever made by her after revision of pay scale, praying therein for release of the same in her favour. Though, perusal of judgment dated 31.10.2008 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in of CWP No.274 of 2001 supra, suggests that direction was issued to respondents to issue revised pay scale w.e.f.
01.01.1996 to the Lecturers working in the College, but rt definitely petitioner was not party to that case.
9. Moreover, judgment passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.8025 of 2010, referred hereinabove, which was further upheld in LPA No.604 of 2011 supra, clearly suggests that similarly situate persons as the petitioner had approached this Court for release of revised pay scale after considerable delay and accordingly their prayer was rejected by this Court on account of inordinate delay itself. In the instant case learned counsel representing the petitioner was unable to render explanation, if any, qua the extra ordinary delay caused by the petitioner seeking revised pay scale and as such this Court sees substantial force in the arguments having been made by Mr. Sood that acceptance of prayer having been made by the petitioner at this stage may open pandora's box, otherwise ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:06:19 :::HCHP 6 also Division Bench of this Court while upholding the judgment dated 27.08.2011 passed by learned Single Judge in aforementioned CWP No.8025 of 2011, has specifically .
held that fencer cannot be held entitled to any relief.
10. In the instant case also, there is no explanation with regard to delay on the part of petitioner, but, relief has been prayed on the strength of judgment rendered by this of Court in CWP No.274 of 2001 supra, which itself suggests that the petitioner failed to take recourse to appropriate remedy within reasonable time for release of revised pay rt scale and as such she can be termed as fencer and cannot be held entitled to any relief.
11. Reliance is placed on B.S. Bajwa and another vs.State of Punjab and others, (1998)2 SCC 523, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"7. Having heard both sides we are satisfied that the writ petition was wrongly entertained and allowed by the single Judge and, therefore, the Judgments of the single Judge and the Division Bench have both to be set aside. The undisputed facts appearing from the record are alone sufficient to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of laches because the grievance made by B. S. Bajwa and B. D. Kapoor only in 1984, which was long after they had entered the department in 1971-72. During this entire period of more than a decade they were all along treated as junior to the other aforesaid persons and the rights inter se had crystallised which ought not to have been re-opened after the lapse of such a long period. At every stage the others were ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:06:19 :::HCHP 7 promoted before B. S. Bajwa and B. D. Kapoor and this position was known to B. S. Bajwa and B. D. Kapoor right from the beginning as found by the Division Bench itself. It is well settled that in service .
matters the question of seniority should not be re-opened in such situations after the lapse of a reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not justifiable. There was inordinate delay in the present case for making such a grievance. This alone was sufficient to decline interference under Article 226 and to reject the writ petition."
of
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava rt and others, 2014 AIR SCW 6519, held that relief cannot be extended to the persons who have approached the Court after long delay, that too, who are fence-sitters. It is apt to reproduce para 24 of the judgment herein:
"24. Viewed from this angle, in the present case, we find that the selection process took place in the year 1986. Appointment orders were issued in the year 1987, but were also cancelled vide orders dated June 22, 1987. The respondents before us did not challenge these cancellation orders till the year 1996, i.e. for a period of 9 years. It means that they had accepted the cancellation of their appointments. They woke up in the year 1996 only after finding that some other persons whose appointment orders were also cancelled got the relief. By that time, nine years had passed. The earlier judgment had granted the relief to the parties before the Court. It would also be pertinent to highlight that these respondents have not joined the service nor working like the employees who succeeded in earlier case before the Tribunal. As of today, 27 years have passed after the issuance of cancellation orders. Therefore, not only there was unexplained delay and laches in filing the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:06:19 :::HCHP 8 claim petition after period of 9 years, it would be totally unjust to direct the appointment to give them the appointment as of today, i.e. after a period of 27 years when most of these respondents would be .
almost 50 years of age or above."
13. Even Division Bench of this Court, while placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court, has held in LPA No.604/2011 supra that "fencer cannot be held entitled to any relief".
of
14. In view of judgment rendered hereinabove by the Division Bench of this Court, this Court sees no force in the rt prayer of the petitioner that respondents ought to have released benefits of revised pay scale to her in the light of judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.274 of 2001 supra, especially, when there is no explanation available on record for inordinate delay caused by the petitioner in maintaining the present petition.
15. Consequently, in view of discussion made hereinabove, this petition is dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, petitioner is at liberty to approach respondents for redressal of her grievances. Interim direction, if any, is vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.
April 1, 2017 (Sandeep Sharma)
(aks) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:06:19 :::HCHP