Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 814 (HP)

Prem Pal Singh v. State of H. P.

2011-03-01

KULDIP SINGH

body2011
JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J. The petitioners in the petition have prayed mainly the following reliefs:- (i) That the provisions of Notification dated 1.9.1998 (Annexure A-6) and subsequent letter/clarification dated 18.2.2000 (Annexure A-8) issued by the respondent No.1, vide which the respondent No.1 has restricted the benefit of protection of the designation and revised equivalent of the unrevised pay scale only to those officials who were working as Senior Clerks and Junior Assistants as on 1.1.1996 as a measure personal to them, may kindly be declared illegal, ultra-vires, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, unconstitutional and unsustainable in the eyes of law and the respondents may please be directed to provide the same benefit of protection of revised equivalent of the unrevised pay scale as a measure personal to the applicants, alongwith all consequential benefits. (ii) That the act of the respondent No.2 in promoting the applicants notionally to the post of Junior Assistants w.e.f. 3.7.1997 in the pay scale of ` 4400-7000 vide order dated 24.2.2000, may kindly be declared illegal, arbitrary, contrary, unreasonable and unsustainable in the eyes of law and the respondent No.2 be directed to provide all the consequential benefits to the applicants from the date the applicants have been ordered to be promoted as Junior Assistants. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that respondent No.2 in the reply has taken the stand that petitioners have been placed as Junior Assistants in the pay scale of ` 44007000 w.e.f.3.7.1997 vide office order No.HB(1) Estt.GF-9(Vol-IV)2001-9711-9910 dated 27.9.2001 and all the arrears w.e.f. 3.7.1997 will be paid to the petitioners in accordance with the said notification dated 31.5.2001. In view of the specific stand taken by the respondent No.2 in the reply, the petitioners do not press the prayer No.(ii) made in the petition. In so far as prayer No.(i) is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that respondent No.2-Board may be directed to consider the case of the petitioners for prayer No.(i) in terms of the judgment dated 20.4.2010 passed in CWP(T) No. 14084 of 2008 regarding the cut of date dated 1.1.1996. The learned counsel for respondent No.2-Board has no objection for granting the prayer as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. The learned counsel for respondent No.2-Board has no objection for granting the prayer as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. Accordingly, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the case of the petitioners regarding cut of date 1.1.1996 as prayed in prayer No.(i) of the petition and while considering the case of the petitioners, the respondent No.2 shall take into consideration the judgment dated 20.4.2010 passed in CWP(T) No. 14084 of 2008 and such decision shall be taken within a period of four months from the date of supply of copy of this judgment and judgment dated 20.4.2010 in CWP(T) No. 14084 of 2008 in one month by the petitioners to respondent No.2. The petition stands disposed of on above terms.