Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 168 (HP)

Bhagi Rath v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2013-03-06

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, Judge Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “i) That order dated 28.4.2012 passed by the respondent No.1 may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to treat the petitioner on deputation in the Federation till he completes 10 years of serviced in the department and thereafter, the respondents may further be directed to release the pensionary benefits to the petitioner in the accordance with law forthwith alongwith all consequential benefits.” 2. In terms of order dated 28.4.2012 (Annexure P13), petitioner’s request for grant of pensionary benefits, by treating him on deputation till the completion of ten years of his services in Animal Husbandry Department, has been turned down. This order was passed pursuant to the petitioner’s representation, which was directed to be disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 19.8.2010 (Annexure P12), passed in CWP No.4780 of 2010, titled as Bhagi Rath versus State of H.P. and another. In terms of the said judgment, the Court had directed the respondents to decide the petitioner’s case, in view of its earlier judgment dated 31.3.2010, passed in CWP No.1097 of 2010 (Annexure P-11), titled as Jai Pal versus State of H.P. and others. 3. The erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal, in TA-880/86 (Annexure P-5), titled as E.B. Patil and others versus State of H.P. and others, Shimla issued the following directions: “……..further direct the respondent to treat them on deputation to H.P. State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited till such time that they have put in 10 years qualifying service in the Animal Husbandry Department of Himachal Pradesh with a view to have the pensionary benefits.” 4. Significantly, directions issued in E.B. Patil(supra) stood accepted and implemented by the State. Petitioner is similarly situated as the petitioner in this case. The Tribunal applied the ratio in respect of another similarly situated person and vide order dated 17.5.2002, passed in OA No.775 of 1996, titled as Ramesh Chand and another versus State of H.P., issued similar directions. This order was unsuccessfully assailed by the State before this Court and the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 24.2.2009, passed in CWP No.1635 of 2002 (Annexure P-7), titled as Government of Himachal Pradesh and another versus Shri Ramesh Chand and another, dismissed the petition. 5. This order was unsuccessfully assailed by the State before this Court and the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 24.2.2009, passed in CWP No.1635 of 2002 (Annexure P-7), titled as Government of Himachal Pradesh and another versus Shri Ramesh Chand and another, dismissed the petition. 5. It is seen that with respect to similarly situated persons, who had not completed ten years of service in the Animal Husbandry Department, the Department itself treated them to be on deputation till completion of ten years and such period was counted for the purposes of grant of pensionary benefits. 6. In the light of several decisions rendered by different Division Benches of this Court, the present petition is to be allowed. 7. As such, the petition is allowed and the impugned order (Annexure P-13) is quashed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner to be on deputation in the Animal Husbandry Department till the completion of his ten years of service and also to release the pensionary benefits to him within a period of three months from today. It is clarified that if monetary benefits as may be found due and admissible are not disbursed to the petitioner within the aforesaid period, then thereafter, petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum, which shall be personally recovered from the erring officials. Writ petition stands disposed of. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.