Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 118 (HP)

Amar Chand v. H. P. State Forest Corporation Ltd

2012-03-22

RAJIV SHARMA

body2012
JUDGEMENT Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar on regular basis on 24.12.198 1. He was confirmed in the same capacity w.e.f. 1.1.1983 on 13.10.1987. He passed matriculation in March, 1990 which led to his promotion on 20.8.1990 as Clerk. He was confirmed as Clerk w.e.f. 24.2.1992 vide office order dated 28.8.1993. He was placed in the pay scale of senior Clerk w.e.f. 22.8.1995 vide office order dated 31.3.1997. Thereafter, he was promoted as Junior Assistant on 2 1.7.1999 and joined his duties on the higher post on 23.7.1999. One Shri Udham Singh filed Original Application No. 1544 of 1998 assailing the promotions of private respondents No. 3 to 7, namely , Lal Chand, Dalip Singh, Chander Rajta, Ganeshu Ram and Ram Prakash. The original application was allowed and the respondent-Corporation has undertaken before the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal to re-look into the matter. However, fact of the matter is that vide judgment dated 24.12.1999, rendered by the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, the respondents were directed to consider the case of the applicant i.e. Udham Singh for regularization w.e.f. 31.7.1984 instead of 2.5.1985. Admittedly, the petitioner was not party in the original application No. 1544 of 1998, which was decided by the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 24.12.1999. However, the fact of the matter is that in sequel to judgment dated 24.12.1999, petitioner was reverted from the post of Junior Assistant to that of Clerk on 21.8.2000 vide Annexure P-11. Thereafter, petitioner filed review petition bearing No. 22 of 2000 against the judgment dated 24.12.1999, rendered by learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, however, the same was dismissed with the observation that it shall be open to the petitioner to file substantive petition. 2. The learned erstwhileHimachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal has only directed to consider the case of Dalip Singh for regularization from the due date. However, in the process, the petitioner has also been reverted from the post of Junior Assistant to the post of Clerk without giving him reasonable opportunity of being heard. Petitioner was not a party in OA No.1544 of 1998. His promotions as Clerk on 20.8.1990 and as Junior Assistant on 2 1.7.1999 were never under challenge in OA No. 1544 of 1998. He has suffered civil and evil consequences. Petitioner was not a party in OA No.1544 of 1998. His promotions as Clerk on 20.8.1990 and as Junior Assistant on 2 1.7.1999 were never under challenge in OA No. 1544 of 1998. He has suffered civil and evil consequences. The learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal had granted interim relief in favour of the petitioner, on the basis of which, he has retired as Junior Assistant in the Corporation on 30.6.2009. 3. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made hereinabove, the present writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-11, dated 21.8.2000, qua the petitioner is quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be deemed to have continued as Junior Assistant for all intents and purposes with all consequential benefits. However, It is made clear by way of abundant precaution that the retiral/pensionary benefits will be worked out of the post of Junior Assistant. Retiral/pensionary benefits shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks after the production of certified copy of this judgment by him, failing which he shall be entitled to 12% interest p.a. till its realization. The pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs.