Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1029 (HP)

Anita Vashist v. State Of H. P.

2010-08-10

RAJIV SHARMA

body2010
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. Petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant vide Annexure A-4 on 26.05.1997. However, on the basis of the judgment dated 5th June, 1996, rendered by the erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1952 of 1991, the confirmation of the petitioner was altered from 01.04.1986 to 01.12.1986 vide Annexure A-5, dated 24.07.1997. The petitioner was also reverted vide Annexure A-6 on 30.07.1997. On the basis of the judgment dated 5th June, 1996 and alteration in the date of confirmation of the petitioner, the private respondents were promoted to the posts of Senior Assistant on 30th July, 1997 vide Annexure A-7. 2. Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that no notice was issued to the petitioner before the issuance of Annexure A-5, dated 24.07.1997 and Annexure A-6, dated 30.07.1997. 3. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General has vehemently argued that as per condition No. 4 appended to office order dated 26.05.1997 (Annexure A-4), the petitioner was put to a caveat. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. The condition No. 4 appended to office order dated 26.05.1997 (Annexure A-4) reads thus: "4. These promotions will not confer any right or title in the matter of seniority or promotion if the present seniority is changed as a result of Court decision or on a reference from the Govt." A bare perusal of this condition reveals that neither the title or the number of any O.A./C.W.P is mentioned in this paragraph. Petitioner was not arrayed as respondent in O.A. No. 1952 of 1991. The judgment was rendered by the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 5th June, 1996 and petitioner was promoted on 26.05.1997. The Court is of the considered view that the petitioner ought to have been heard before the issuance of Annexures A-5 and A-6, dated 24.07.1997 and 30th July, 1997, respectively, even though the office order was issued on the basis of judgment dated 5th June, 1996. The petitioner ought to have been apprised of this judgment to enable him to project his case before the employer. 6. Mr. The petitioner ought to have been apprised of this judgment to enable him to project his case before the employer. 6. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General on the basis of contents of the reply, has also argued that the petitioner was junior most in the cadre of Senior Assistant and in view of the judgment dated 5th June, 1996, he has rightly been reverted. However, fact of the matter is that the petitioner ought to have been issued a show cause notice before the issuance of Annexure A-5, dated 24.07.1997 and A-6, dated 30.07.1997. The private respondent No. 4 has expired during the pendency of this petition. The notice was issued to respondent No. 7, however, he has refused to accept the same. He will be deemed to have been served. Respondents No. 3, 5 and 6 have already been proceeded ex parte by the erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 24.02.1998. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations made herein above, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-5, dated 24.07.1997 and A-6, dated 30.07.1997 are quashed and set aside. However, the respondents are directed to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. No costs.