Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 165 (HP)

Amar Chand v. State of H. P.

2015-03-11

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J. (Oral) The petitioner, by the medium of present writ petition, undertakes third round of litigation. The petitioner had approached this Court by way of writ petition, being CWP No.264 of 2010, titled Amar Chand vs. State of H.P. and another, which came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 4th March, 2010 and the respondents were directed to examine the case of the petitioner and to grant similar relief to the petitioner as was granted in the cases of similarly situated persons. It is apt to reproduce operative portion of the said decision, hereunder: “It submitted that in the same department and in the same year, in the case of cases of similarly situated persons, State has already granted extension so as to enable them to complete their minimum required period of 10 years for the minimum pension. Petitioner prays for similar treatment. In case similarly situated persons have been granted the benefit, petitioner cannot be discriminated. Petitioner has filed representation Annexure P-1 before the second respondent. He is directed to look into Annexure P-1 in the light of the observation made in this judgment and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of production of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition.” 2. Thereafter, respondents examined the case of the petitioner and passed the consideration order on 16th June, 2010, whereby the case of the petitioner stood rejected, constraining him to question the same by filing Contempt Petition, being COPC No.155 of 2010, which came to be granted and the said consideration order, dated 16th June, 2010, was recalled and the respondents were directed to examine the case of the petitioner and pass order afresh. 3. Respondents, again, vide order dated 7th October, 2010, considered the case of the petitioner, though found him entitled, came to the conclusion that the similarly situated persons approached the competent authority well in time and rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that he approached the competent Authority at a belated stage. The operative portion of the said order reads thus: “However, Shri Amar Chand, has since, retired from service, w.e.f. 28.02.2009 and as per information received from Block Development Officer, Pragpur, Shri Amar Chand was given his terminal dues i.e. leave encashment etc. on 07.12.2009. The Director, Rural Development Govt. The operative portion of the said order reads thus: “However, Shri Amar Chand, has since, retired from service, w.e.f. 28.02.2009 and as per information received from Block Development Officer, Pragpur, Shri Amar Chand was given his terminal dues i.e. leave encashment etc. on 07.12.2009. The Director, Rural Development Govt. of H.P., had earlier considered and decided the representation of Shri Amar Chand on 16.06.2010 i.e. more than 15 months after his retirement, much after he had served his links with the Government service by taking terminal dues admissible to him. Therefore, the case of Shri Amar Chand is in no way similar to Shri Krishan Sharma. The perusal of the record reveals that the file of the petitioner was moved to the competent authority by the respondents for the extension of seven months, so as to complete the qualifying service of 10 years, but the same was rejected after the sympathetic consideration. Moreover, extension in service cannot be claimed by any official as a matter of right. Heard both parties at length. In view of the above, it appears that the case of the petitioner for the extension of 7 months, so as to enable him to complete his minimum required period of 10 years for the minimum pension, cannot be considered at this belated state, since, the petitioner has already retired from government service w.e.f. 28.02.2009.” 4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition for quashing the order, dated 7th October, 2010. Respondents resisted the writ petition on the ground that granting of extension in service is not permissible under the Rules, including other grounds also. 5. Respondents are precluded from taking such a defence for the reason that the Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 4th March, 2010, passed in CWP No.264 of 2010, had already directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and grant him similar relief, as granted to the similarly situated persons. Notwithstanding this fact, the respondents again passed a wrong order and rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground which is not permissible. 6. Notwithstanding this fact, the respondents again passed a wrong order and rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground which is not permissible. 6. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order, dated 7th October, 2010, (Annexure P-4), is quashed and set aside, and the respondents are directed to examine the case of the petitioner in light of the decision of this Court in CWP No.264 of 2010 (supra) and pass orders accordingly within a period of four weeks from today. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending CMPs, if any.