Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 634 (HP)

STATE OF H. P. v. BELI RAM

2013-07-03

A.M.KHANWILKAR, KULDIP SINGH

body2013
Judgment : A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.- 1. Heard counsel for the parties. Admit. As short question is involved, appeal is taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent. Respondent waives notice through counsel. 2. This appeal takes exception to the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 12th August, 2011. The learned Single Judge has issued direction to the appellants to give benefit to the respondent on the same lines, as given to Jai Singh, as noted in the affidavit filed in CWP No.3587 of 2011. That direction is primarily subject matter of challenge in this appeal. The argument of the appellants is, the case of the respondent is covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Garja Ram vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 12th September, 2011 in CWP No.3587 of 2011. The direction given by the Division Bench of this Court in the said decision is to treat the petitioner therein as having retired on attaining the age of 60 years for all purposes except the actual monetary benefits for the period of two years from 58 to 60 years. 3. Even in the case of the respondent, the respondent attained the age of superannuation on completion of 58 years on 30th November, 2007. However, his regularization order with effect from the date prior to 10th May, 2001 was passed after his retirement (i.e. after 30th November, 2007). The respondent on that basis made representation on 1st September, 2008 to allow him to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years. By that time, however, the respondent had already reached the age of 59 years. Even in the case of Garja Ram, the fact situation is similar. Notwithstanding that, the Division Bench in that case extended notional benefit to the employee concerned except the actual monetary benefits for the period of 2 years from 58 to 60 years. 4. Therefore, we find force in the argument that even in the case of the respondent, similar relief could be granted and not the additional relief of payment of monetary benefits for the period of two years from 58 to 60 years. 4. Therefore, we find force in the argument that even in the case of the respondent, similar relief could be granted and not the additional relief of payment of monetary benefits for the period of two years from 58 to 60 years. However, the learned Single Judge has relied on the case of Jai Singh who, according to the respondent, was similarly placed but was given actual monetary benefit for the period of two years from 58 to 60 years. As regards that case, it is positively asserted by appellants that the benefit was wrongly extended to Jai Singh by the Department on its own and not pursuant to any Court's order; and the department having realized that mistake has already taken steps to recover the excess amount so paid to Jai Singh. 5. In other words, it is incorrect to say that Jai Singh has been given actual monetary benefit for the period of two years from 58 to 60 years. That, however, being the basis on which the relief has been granted by the learned Single Judge to the respondent; and that fact has become a non-existent fact due to changed situation, the respondent cannot succeed in getting that relief. Thus understood, this appeal ought to succeed and the impugned direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the abovenoted extent deserves to be set aside. 6. In other words, the case of the respondent will have to be processed by the appellants on the basis of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Garja Ram's case. Although, this appeal succeeds, we direct the appellants to process the case of the respondent expeditiously, in any case, not later than two months from today. Appeal disposed of on the above terms alongwith the pending application, if any.