Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 184 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ashwani Kumar

2012-04-11

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, KURIAN JOSEPH

body2012
JUDGMENT : Kurian Joseph, J. What are the relevant factors in awarding consequential benefits in cases retrospective promotion, is one of the questions arising for consideration in this case. Respondents No.1 to 3-State and others have come up in appeal, aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.10.2010 in CWP(T) No.5950 of 2008. The issue pertains to the appointment to the post of Deputy Ranger. The writ petitioner has claimed appointment with effect from 27.2.1979 on the ground that the persons junior to him in the select list have already been appointed. Though the O.A. No.2013/1999 was filed before the Tribunal on 26th June, 1999, on the abolition of the Tribunal the matter was transferred to this Court and registered as CWP(T) No.5950 of 2008. 2. The learned single Judge after referring to the chequered history in the case and also on perusal of the record entered a finding that the juniors to the petitioner in the select list have already been appointed, pursuant to the orders issued by the Tribunal and those orders had become final. Therefore, a direction was issued to appoint the petitioner as Deputy Ranger with effect from the date when Sh. Hukam Singh is appointed i.e. 28.2.1979. There was also a direction to grant all the consequential benefits. 3. We do not think it necessary to go into the entire history of this case since all the earlier orders of the Tribunal have attained finality. The order under challenge before this Court was dismissed. The State attempted in review, that was also dismissed. The matter was taken-up before the Apex Court and the SLP was also dismissed. There is no dispute on these facts. Since the learned Single Judge has only directed a similar treatment to be given, we do not find any ground to interfere in the appeal. It may also be relevant to note that one of the grounds taken in the appeal was that the review petition was pending. The review petition was dismissed and thereafter SLP was also dismissed. 4. However, having regard to the factual background of this case and the time the steps were taken by the writ petitioner, we are of the view that it will not be just, fair, proper and reasonable to award the entire consequential benefits to the writ petitioner with effect from the date of appointment. The grant of consequential benefits is not automatic. The grant of consequential benefits is not automatic. Various factors including delay, laches, limitation, equity etc. would have to be taken into consideration. Admittedly, the original application was filed before the Tribunal only on 26th June, 1999. The selection pertains to the year 1979. Therefore, the actual monetary benefits shall be limited from the date of filing of the O.A. i.e. 26th June, 1999, upto that period all the benefits will only be notional. 5. Subject to the above, the appeal is dismissed. The benefits, as above, shall be worked out and disbursed to the writ petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this Judgment by the writ petitioner before the first appellant.