Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 683 (HP)

Ved Prakash Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2011-02-26

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2011
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J. 1. By means of this petition the petitioners pray that the benefit of service rendered during training period undergone by them should also be given to them and their pay should be stepped up so that it is equal to that of their junior Pradeep Bhardwaj. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioners were selected for appointment as Forest Rangers and thereafter joined training as trainee Forest Rangers in the training School at Haldwani ( UP) on 1.7.1984. After completion of training they joined as Forest Rangers on 1.7.1985. Shri Pradeep Bhardwaj who is admittedly junior to the writ petitioners joined as Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. Forest Ranger on 1.7.1985 i.e. exactly after one year in the same institution and on completion of training joined the department on 1.7.1986. 3. The Government of India issued some instructions on 22nd October, 1990 which were further supplemented by instructions dated 31st March, 1992. The relevant portion of the instructions reads as follow: “3. The matter has been considered in the National Council (JCM) and it has been decided that in case where a person has been selected for regular appointment and before formally taking over charge of the post for which selected person is required to undergo training, training period undergone by such a Government servant whether on remuneration of stipend or otherwise may be treated as duty for the purpose of drawing increments. 4. These orders take effect from 1st October, 1990. On the demand of the Staff Side in the National Council (JCM), the matter has further been examined and it has been decided that the benefit of treatment of such training period as duty for the purpose of increment may be allowed in the case of those Government servants also who had undergone such training on or after 1st January, 1986. However, in such cases the benefit of counting period for pay will be admissible on notional basis from 1st January, 1986 and actual basis from 1st October, 1990.” Thereafter the government issued further clarification permitting stepping up of pay of a candidate already in Government Service to make it equal to the pay of the junior.. This instruction was issued on 29th March, 1993 and the relevant portion of the instructions reads as follow: “3. This instruction was issued on 29th March, 1993 and the relevant portion of the instructions reads as follow: “3. In order to remove the aforesaid anomaly, it has been decided to step up the pay of a candidate already in Government service from the date of next increment of direct recruit junior to him. However, the stepping up of pay is to be allowed only if the anomaly is due to direct application of the provisions contained in this Department’s O.M. of even number, dated 22.10.1990.” 4. The petitioners claim is that they have undergone the same training as their junior and they cannot be put at a disadvantage vis a vis this junior by giving benefit of the first instructions issued by the Government. The pay of Shri Pradeep Bhardwaj who is junior to the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 2050/- w.e.f. 1.7.1991 whereas the pay of the petitioners was fixed at Rs.2000/-. 5. The stand of the State is that the State of H. P. only adopted the first instructions which are applicable from 1st January, 1986 and since the petitioners had undergone training prior to 1st January, 1986 their case is not covered by these instructions. 6. To say the least, the stand of the State smacks of arbitrariness. Article 14 of the Constitution ensures equality of law to all citizens. It is the basic principle of service jurisprudence that the senior should not get less pay than the junior. There are exceptions where juniors get higher pay because of higher qualification etc. However, in the present case the petitioners as well as the junior have undergone identical training. The junior having been given benefit of counting the training period for fixation of pay, the same has been denied to the petitioners who are seniors. In my considered view the said action of the respondent is totally arbitrary and malafide and cannot be sustained. 7. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to refix the salary of the petitioners to make it equivalent to that of their junior w.e.f. 1.10.1990. Since the petition was filed before the erstwhile Tribunal on 31.8.2005 the petitioners shall be entitled to monetary benefits on this count only w.e.f. 1.9.2004 i.e. one year prior to the filing of the petition since the limitation for filing the petition was one year before the Tribunal. Since the petition was filed before the erstwhile Tribunal on 31.8.2005 the petitioners shall be entitled to monetary benefits on this count only w.e.f. 1.9.2004 i.e. one year prior to the filing of the petition since the limitation for filing the petition was one year before the Tribunal. The respondents are directed to work out the arrears and pay the same to the petitioners on or before 30th June, 2011 failing which the State shall be entitled to pay interest on the arrears @ 9% per annum from the date it fell due and till the payment of the amount. No costs.