Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 315 (HP)

Bali Ram Sharma v. State of H. P.

2014-03-31

SANJAY KAROL

body2014
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Original petitioner Smt. Shashi Sharma, was appointed as a Female Health Worker on 13.12.1980. She was granted first proficiency step-up on 1.1.1988, after completion of eight years of service. Second proficiency step-up was granted on 1.1.1996. Monetary benefits in terms thereof, were disbursed to her. Though she was to retire in the year 2014, but in the year 2012 itself, without any prior notice, respondent/authorities reduced her pay scale, which is evident from impugned order dated 13.8.2012 (Annexure P-4). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner rightly points out that impugned order is contrary to Instructions dated 1.12.1999, as for the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme, period of 8/16/24/32 years has to be reckoned with, overall years of service. 3. Original petitioner expired and her legal heirs are now pursuing the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the decisions rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4572 of 2009, titled as Shamsher Singh vs. HPSEB & others, decided on 7.7.2010 as also CWP(T) No. 10694 of 2008, titled as Vidya Prakash vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 23.3.2010, wherein under identical circumstances, orders of recovery stand quashed. 5. Noticeably, in response, respondents have admitted the claim of the petitioner in the following terms:- “2. That it is further submitted that after coming into the notice of the present issue, the complete matter as per the correspondences exchanged between the offices of the Respondent No. 3 and 4, Annexures P/2 and P/3, as well as the Office Order dated 13.8.2012, Annexures P/4, P/4-T, has been reviewed by the office of the present replying respondent in consultation with the financial experts and it has been found that the fixation in respect of the Petitioner made earlier in the year 1999 on account of her promotion i.e. at Rs. 6400/- as on 1-1-1999 is correct and the order of re-fixation of her pay as made by the Respondent No. 4 vide Annexure P/4, P/4-T with recovery of one increment is incorrect. After review of the entire matter, necessary clarifications/directions have also been issued/given to the offices of the Respondents No. 3 & 4. Hence, the further necessary action is being taken by the Respondent No. 4 accordingly.” 6. As such present petition is allowed. After review of the entire matter, necessary clarifications/directions have also been issued/given to the offices of the Respondents No. 3 & 4. Hence, the further necessary action is being taken by the Respondent No. 4 accordingly.” 6. As such present petition is allowed. Annexure P-1 is quashed, and respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5969/- to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations, petition is disposed of, as also the pending application(s), if any.