Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1034 (HP)

Neeraj Gupta v. State of H. P.

2012-12-26

SURINDER SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, Judge (Oral) The petitioners herein, except petitioner No. 3 Jeet Kumar, were appointed as Gram Panchayat Avam Vikas Adhikari vide Annexure P-1 dated 15.7.2002, whereas petitioner No. 3 Jeet Kumar was appointed as such vide Annexure P-2 dated 24.7.2002. After their appointments, they were posted in different blocks of District Mandi as it being a district cadre. 2. The petitioners felt aggrieved by Annexures P-5 to P-9, dated 6.1.2005, whereby they were to be appointed temporarily against the permanent post(s) w.e.f. 6.1.2005 on completion of two years’ training pursuant to Annexure P-4 dated 13.2.2003, vide which period of six months which was initially indicated in their appointment letters Annexures P-1 and P-2, was extended to two years. 3. As a matter of fact, the respondent-State had invited applications for filling up the vacant posts of Gram Panchayat Avam Vikas Adhikari, now redesignated as Panchayat Secretary through the H.P. Subordinate Service Selection Board, which is a class-III post, as per R & P Rules notified on 20th January, 2000. The petitioners herein applied for the said posts pursuant to the advertisement No. 3 of 2000. They were asked to appear in the interview before the Selection Board and were duly selected. Accordingly, appointment letters of the petitioners Annexure P-1 & P-2 were issued informing them that they had been selected for the post of Gram Panchayat Avam Vikas Adhikari. They were asked to give an option as to in which district they wanted to serve since the said post is in a district cadre. Accordingly, they were posted against the vacant posts as per their options. It was further directed that for six months the appointee shall be deputed for training before the concerned Block Development Officer in the concerned district. It was also informed that only after completion of six months, they were to be appointed to the posts of ‘Gram Panchayat Avam Vikas Adhikari’ in the regular pay scale. For the training period, they were held entitled to Rs.700/- per month as stipend but vide letter Annexure P-4 aforesaid, this period of six months was extended to two years and the stipend amount was Rs.700/- per month for the first year and Rs.1400/- per month for subsequent year. Their regular appointment was made on 6.1.2005. 4. For the training period, they were held entitled to Rs.700/- per month as stipend but vide letter Annexure P-4 aforesaid, this period of six months was extended to two years and the stipend amount was Rs.700/- per month for the first year and Rs.1400/- per month for subsequent year. Their regular appointment was made on 6.1.2005. 4. During the intervening period, the State in view of its financial constraints had modified the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh. The net effect of this was that pension was no longer available to the employees appointed after 4th May, 2003 and they were only entitled to the benefit of Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS). 5. The stand of the State has been that since regular appointment of the petitioners was made in January, 2005, their appointment is subject to the amended rules and they cannot be held entitled to the benefit of pension. Whereas, the petitioners claim that they were selected and appointed prior to the amendment made in the Pension Rules and further that merely because they were kept on training during, this period cannot nullify the appointment orders issued to them earlier in the year 2002. 6. A perusal of the initial orders of their appointment made in July, 2002 clearly shows that they were selected after following proper procedure and the due process of selection to the said post. Thereafter, they were given an option of choosing their district cadre. In July, 2002, office orders were issued appointing them as such, but placing them on training for a period of ‘six’ months, which was later extended to ‘two’ years. This training cannot nullify the initial appointment which has already been passed and issued. Training was a step-in-aid after the appointment had been made. Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the said post do not envisage any pre-appointment training in any manner, whereas it clearly lays down that 100% appointment to the said post shall be made by direct recruitment, which method stood already followed in the present case. Therefore, under the garb of imparting training to the petitioners, they cannot be told that their appointment commenced after the training was completed by each of them. Therefore, under the garb of imparting training to the petitioners, they cannot be told that their appointment commenced after the training was completed by each of them. They might have been kept on training and a stipend paid during the training period, but the fact is that the duly constituted authority i.e. H.P. Subordinate Service Selection Board had selected the petitioners. Thereafter, the appointing authority had issued the appointment letters and directed that they be sent on training. That would not mean that their regular appointment would be followed on completion of training of two years. In fact, their service will be deemed to have been started from the date when they were issued appointment letter(s) prior to their training. 7. This Court in CWP (T) No. 2145/2008 Mandeep Kumar and others versus State of H.P. & others alongwith other connected matters, decided on 21.2.2011 by the co-ordinate bench, had taken the above view which is also followed in this case, as there is no reason to differ with it. 8. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of and the petitioners are directed to be treated as employees appointed prior to 15th May, 2003 with all consequential benefits. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.