Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1339 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Prem Chand

2015-09-21

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. LPA No. 119 of 2010 and LPA No. 337 of 2010 are directed against the judgment and order dated 23.3.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP (T) No. 8112 of 2008 titled Shri Prem Chand and others versus State of HP and others and LPA No. 330 of 2010 and LPA No. 41 of 2011 are directed against the judgment and order dated 28.4.2010 passed in CWP (T) No. 11688 of 2008 titled Nirmal Kumar and others versus State of HP, for short ?the impugned judgments?. 2. The impugned judgment in LPAs No. 330 of 2010 and LPA No. 41 of 2011 is outcome of the judgment impugned in LPA No. 119 of 2010 and LPA No. 337 of 2010. Thus, we deem it proper to dispose of all these appeals by this common judgment. 3. The question is whether the judgment made by the Writ Court in CWP (T) No. 8112 of 2008 is legally correct? The answer is in negative for the following reasons. 4. The writ petitioners, by the medium of CWP (T) No. 8112/2008, had filed writ petition mainly with the following prayers, on the grounds taken in the writ petition: (i) That the HP Civil Services (Revised Pay) (First Amendment) Rules, 1998 (Annexure A-7) may be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the office order dated November 03, 2001 Annexure A-8 issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh may be quashed and set aside. (iii) That the office order dated November 22, 2001 (Annexure A-9) may also be quashed and set aside. (iv) That the respondents may be directed not to effect any recoveries from the applicants.? 5. Heard. 6. The learned Single Judge has not discussed what were the grounds which could be made basis for declaring that the HP Civil Services (Revised Pay) (First Amendment) Rules, 1998 are violative of the Service Jurisprudence and the mandate of the Constitution of India. It is also not discussed how it has adversely affected the writ petitioners and which rights have been taken away. 7. The learned Single Judge, without taking into account the pleadings of the parties, particularly the defence of writ respondents-appellants herein, in an arbitrary manner, quashed annexure A7. 8. Annexure A8 is office order dated 3.11.2001 issued by the Government of HP and Annexure A9 flows from the said order. 7. The learned Single Judge, without taking into account the pleadings of the parties, particularly the defence of writ respondents-appellants herein, in an arbitrary manner, quashed annexure A7. 8. Annexure A8 is office order dated 3.11.2001 issued by the Government of HP and Annexure A9 flows from the said order. It is worthwhile to mention herein that the learned Single Judge has quashed Annexure A9 without quashing Annexure A8. 9. It is worthwhile to record herein that the learned Single Judge has recorded in the judgment that State-respondents have issued Annexure A2 by virtue of which, pay scales of Rs.1500-2700 was revised to Rs.5000-8100 and has also made mention of Annexures A-3 to A7 in terms of which the petitioners were placed in the higher pay scales and the amendment was carried out in Annexure A7. Thereafter, it has reproduced Annexure A7 and paras 55 to 60 of the judgment delivered by the apex Court in Syed Abdul Qadir and others versus State of Bihar and others (2009) 3 SCC 475 and in operative para has allowed the writ petitions. It is apparent on the face of it that the Writ Court has not made any discussion and has failed to marshal out the facts and merits of the case, not to speak of discussing the law that what was the foundation for quashing the said Annexures A7 and A9. 10. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dilip Sharma, was asked to defend the judgment and also indicate whether the reasons are contained in the impugned judgment. He frankly conceded that the judgment is bereft of reasons and that constrained the writ petitioners to file cross-appeals, i.e. LPAs No. 337 of 2010 and LPA No. 41 of 2011. 11. Having said so, the impugned judgment merits to be quashed and consequently judgments impugned in other appeals also merit to be quashed. 12. Viewed thus, the appeals are allowed and the impugned judgments are quashed. Writ petitions are revived and remanded to the HP State Administrative Tribunal. 13. The parties are directed to cause appearance before the Tribunal on 26.10.2015. 14. We hope and trust that the writ petitions will be decided by the HP State Administrative Tribunal as early as possible, preferably within eight weeks from today. Registry is directed to send down the files. Indexes be maintained and consigned to records.