Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1481 (HP)

Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Produce Marketing and Processing Corporation Limited v. Kartar Singh

2015-10-12

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order, dated 30.10.2012, made by the Writ Court in CWP No. 5660 of 2012, titled as Shri Kartar Singh versus H.P. Horticultural Produce Marketing & Processing Corporation Ltd. And others, whereby the writ petition came to be allowed and the writ respondents were directed to grant special pay to the writ petitioner-respondent herein in terms of Chapter 4.13 of the Himachal Pradesh Horticultural Produce Marketing and Processing Corporation Limited, Employees Service Byelaws (hereinafter referred to as "Service Byelaws") (for short "the impugned judgment"). 2. The writ petitioner-respondent herein was holding the additional charge of Junior Accountant with effect from February, 1994 till 31.03.1996, had prayed for release of special pay in terms of the Service Byelaws, was denied by the writ respondents-appellants herein, constraining him to file writ petition, which was allowed vide the impugned judgment. 3. We have gone through paras 2 and 3 of the impugned judgment, which do disclose that the writ petitioner-respondent herein is entitled to special pay for the period he has discharged the additional duties, in terms of Chapter 4.13 of the Service Byelaws. 4. It is apt to reproduce Chapter 4.13 of the Service Byelaws herein: "4.13. Special pay at a rate not exceeding 10% of presumptive pay to be determined by the appointing authority may be allowed to a person holding charge of an independent post in addition to his own duties for a period exceeding one month." 5. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the writ petitioner-respondent herein is not entitled to special pay in terms of revised pay, which is misconceived. The writ petitioner-respondent herein is entitled to special pay as per the pay scale, which was existing during such period. 6. Having said so, the impugned judgment is legal and speaking one, needs no interference. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is upheld and the appeal is dismissed alongwith all pending applications.