Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P. And Anr vs Ravinder Kumar Sharma And Ors on 20 June, 2018
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
CWP No. 1352/2018
Decided on : 20.6.2018
__________________________________________________________
.
State of H.P. and anr. .....Petitioners
Versus
Ravinder Kumar Sharma and ors. ....Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia,
Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the petitioners:
r Mr. Ashok Sharma, A.G. with
Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Sr. Addl. A.G.,
Mr. J.K. Verma, Mr. Sudhir
Bhatnagar, Addl. A.G.s and Mr.
J.S. Guleria, Dy.A.G.
.
For the respondents: Mr. K. D. Sood, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
____________________________________________________________
Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J (oral)
The State and its authorities being aggrieved by the order dated 1.8.2017 passed by the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Shimla (in short, the Administrative Tribunal), whereby the respondents have been held entitled to the scale of Rs.37,400-67,000/- in the grade 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2018 22:59:49 :::HCHP ...2...
pay of Rs.8600/- as a measure personal to them, have .
preferred the instant petition for setting aside the impugned order.
2 The brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed a writ petition before this Court, which was eventually transferred to the learned Administrative Tribunal and registered as T.A. No.1804/2015 for the grant of following substantive reliefs:
a) Direct the respondents to implement the notification Annexure P-1 whereby the petitioners are entitled to the scale of Rs.37,400-67,000/- in the grade pay of Rs.8600/- as a measure personal to them without any relevance to the determination of the seniority as they have completed 14 years of regular service including service as Assistant Engineers w.e.f.
19.7.2013;
b) Direct the respondents to release the arrears alongwith interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum within a time bound period;
c) Quash the order Annexure P-2 by which the release of the scale and the representation of the petitioners have been deferred in view of the determination of the seniority list of Assistant Engineers having no relevance to the case.
3 In the reply filed by the State, it was averred that the petition was not maintainable as the subject matter of ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2018 22:59:49 :::HCHP ...3...
promotion of the respondents to the post of Assistant .
Engineer and then Executive Engineer was still sub judice before the learned Administrative Tribunal in CWP No. 9184/2011, titled as Sanjeev Kumar Soni and ors. Vs. State of H.P. and ors., and other connected matters and, therefore, unless and until the judgment was passed in these matters, there was no question of granting further benefit of 4/3/2 tier pay scale. In addition thereto, it was stated that since the issue of seniority was again sub judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a special leave petition arising out of the judgment dated 8.1.2010 rendered by this Court in CWP No. 1358/2008, titled as S.S. Kutleria and ors. vs. State of H.P. and ors. and further sub judice before this Court in CWP No. 9184/2011, titled as Sanjeev Kumar Soni and ors. Vs. State of H.P. and ors., therefore, also till the final decision is given in these cases by the respective Courts, no benefit as sought for by the respondents could be granted to them.
4 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.
5 At the outset, it needs to be noticed that as regards CWP No. 9184/2011, there is no dispute that the ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2018 22:59:49 :::HCHP ...4...
same stands withdrawn and disposed of by the learned .
Administrative Tribunal on 1.8.2017.
6 Noticeably, the entire claim of the respondents is based upon the instructions issued by the State on 19.7.2013, which read thus:
"Subject: Re-introduction of two tier pay structure in case of Executive Engineers in Public Work Department and Irrigation & Public r Health Department.
Sir/Madam, I am directed to refer to the subject cited above and to say that two/three tier pay scales were given to certain categories of post in the pre revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1995. These scales remained operational till 26.8.2009. As a consequence of revision of pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.2006 it was decided that the cases of the officers/officials who were eligible in the next higher pay scales in the two/three tier pay scales under the pre revised pay scales, may not be considered after 26.8.2009 vide this department letter No. Fin. (PR)B(7)-1/98, dated 31.8.2009.
2. Now after careful consideration of the matter the Governor, Himachal Pradesh, is pleased to re-introduce the process of granting two tier pay scales, in the revised pay structutre, by granting the revised corresponding pay structure to the category of Executive Engineer in Public Works Department and ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2018 22:59:49 :::HCHP ...5...
Irrigation & Public Health Department as per the schedule appended to the H.P. Civil Services (Revised .
Pay) Rules, 2009 with immediate effect. There will be no retrospective application of this order.
Consequently, 2 tier pay scale notified vide notification No. Fin (PR)B(7)-1/98 dated 1.9.1998 w.r.t. Executive Engineers of PWD and I&PH Department in the pre- revised pay scale shall undergo the changes as under:-
Sr. Name of Pay Band Grade Initial Pay No. service/post Pay Executive i) 15600- 7600 31320 Engineers of 39100 PWD & I&PH Departments 8600 46000 (After 14
ii) 37400- years of regular 67000 service including service as Assistant Engineer
3. The above pay structure will be as a measure personal to the employee and shall have no relevance to his seniority position. As such no stepping up of the pay in pay band and grade pay would be admissible with regard to junior getting more pay than the senior on account of pay fixation as per above.
4. For interpretation/clarification of the decisions contained in these instructions, the finance department shall be the final authority."::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2018 22:59:49 :::HCHP
...6...
7 Admittedly, the case of respondent No.1 was .
returned by the State Government vide letter dated 22.12.2014 only on the ground that such like cases be sent only after finalization of the seniority list of Assistant Engineers, as is evident from the said letter, which reads thus:-
"Subject: Regarding granting of 4 tier/2 tier pay scale to the Executive Engineers. In this connection, it is intimated that the 4 tier/2 tier pay scale cases were sent to the Govt. by the Engineer-in-Chief, I&PH Department, Shimla-1 for its approval and the same have been returned back by the govt. With the observation that the cases be sent after finalization of seniority list of Assistant Engineers (Civil).
It is, therefore, requested that no such cases be forwarded to this office until and unless the directions are received from the Govt. The service books of the following Executive Engineers are also returned herewith for taking further necessary action at your end.
Sr. Name of Officer Service Book
No.
1 Shri Ravinder Kumar Part-1 to III.
Sharma, E.E.
The receipt of the above service books may pleased to be acknowledged."
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2018 22:59:49 :::HCHP...7...
8 However, the context of the letter as reproduced .
above and as rightly noticed by the learned Administrative Tribunal, runs contrary to the instructions dated 19.7.2013 (supra), wherein in para 3, it has been clearly provided that the pay structure in question will be as a measure personal to the employee and shall have no relevance to his seniority position.
9 Such instructions admittedly were issued bearing in mind the ratio of the judgment rendered by this Court in S.S. Kutlehria's case, as the said case was decided on 8.1.2010, whereas instructions in question were issued more than 3 ½ years thereafter on 19.7.2013. Therefore, in such circumstances, the learned Administrative Tribunal has correctly observed that dispute in S.S. Kutlehria's case relates only to the question of seniority and has otherwise been implemented by the State.
10 Apart from above, it has been established on record that after promotion as Assistant Engineers, the respondents had in fact worked as such and thereafter worked as Executive Engineers for a period of more than 14 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2018 22:59:49 :::HCHP ...8...
years and their cases were thus covered by the instructions .
dated 19.7.2013.
11 This Court while exercising its powers of judicial review would confine itself to the question of perversity in the impugned order and having gone through the same, we find no such perversity in the impugned order.
12 For the forgoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Chander Bhusan Barowalia) Judge June 20, 2018 (pankaj) ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2018 22:59:49 :::HCHP