Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1416 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Rajesh Sohal

2017-12-20

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The State of Himachal Pradesh is aggrieved by the verdict recorded by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP(T) No. 9754 of 2008. 2. Under the impugned verdict, the learned Single Judge of this Court, has meted deference, to a pronouncement recorded by the learned Single Judge, of this Court in CWP(T) No. 2637 of 2008, titled as Shri Bansi Lal versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & another. For rendering an adjudication, with, respect to the applicability, of a pronouncement recorded by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP(T) No. 2637 of 2008, vis-a-vis the facts germane to the extant appeal, the hereinafter facts borne therein, enjoins, an imperative allusion thereto. (a) The petitioner in CWP(T) No. 2637 of 2008, being initially appointed on 25.02.1978 as a Laboratory Technician, (b) however, under Annexure A-12, borne on the record, of the aforesaid writ petition, his manning the post of Senior Laboratory Technician w.e.f. 27.06.1978, (c) his being, upon, bifurcation, of, the department of Ayurveda, hitherto under the department of Heath and Family Welfare, from, the latter department AND its creation as a distinct department, of Ayurveda in February, 1985, hence being allocated therefrom vis-a-vis the latter department. (d) under a notification issued on 3.4.1991, by the department of Health and Family Welfare, there occurring revisions in the pay scale of Senior Laboratory Technician, from, Rs.510-940/- to 1410-2460/-. In aftermath, the learned Single Bench of this Court, affirmatively considered the merits of the contention of the petitioner in the aforesaid CWP(T) No. 2637 of 2008, of upon his allocation, to the department of Ayurveda, in the year 1985, upon, the latter's bifurcation, from, the Department of Health and Family Welfare, any affording to him, by the respondent concerned, the lesser pay scale of 1350-2400 per mensem, being construable, to be perpetuation of injustice upon him, given (a) his being entitled to parity vis-a-vis the revised pay scales, prescribed, under a notification issued by the respondents concerned vis-a-vis Senior Laboratory Technicians, serving in the department of Health and Family Welfare, pay scale qua whom was enhanced, from, Rs.510-940/- to Rs.1410-2460/- per mensem, (b) especially under Annexure A-12, the post of Laboratory Technicians, in the hitherto parent department of Health and Family Welfare, stood re-nomencaltured as Senior Laboratory technicians. 3. 3. The cullings, of, trite factums aforesaid from the rendition recorded by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP(T) No. 2637 of 2008, AND with para materia therewith factual matrix prevailing here at, was also construed by the learned Single Judge, to be, hence mutatis mutandis attractable vis-a-vis the respondents herein. The reason assigned by the learned Single judge of this Court for his being constrained to vis-a-vis the factual scenario prevailing here at, hence, apply, the verdict rendered in CWP(T) No. 2637 of 2008,, is concerted, to be invalidated on the trite ground (a) of, the respondents herein being appointed in the department of Ayurveda, respectively, in the interregnum beyond between 1996 to 2005, (b) whereas, the petitioner in CWP(T) No. 2637 of 2008, being appointed, prior to, the bifurcation of the department, of Ayurveda, from, the hitherto parent department, of Health and Family Welfare, (c) also his prior to the aforesaid bifurcation hence manning the post of Sr. Laboratory Technician, (d) hence his being entitled, to, the revised pay scales vis-a-vis the post of Senior Laboratory Technician, (e) contrarily with the respondents herein after the apposite bifurcations, rather respectively manning the post of Laboratory Technician, hence theirs not being entitled, to claim any parity vis-a-vis the petitioner, in CWP(T) No. 2637 of 2008, especially when he was prior to the apt bifurcation, manning, the apposite post of Senior Laboratory Technician. However, the aforesaid ground as espoused before this Court by the State, for its concerting, to invalidate the pronouncement recorded, by the learned Single Judge of this Court, is unworthy of credence, for the reasons (i) even if, the petitioner in CWP(T) No. 2637 of 2008, was evidently prior to the bifurcation of the department of Ayurveda, from, the department of Health and Family Welfare, hence, serving as Senior Laboratory Technician, thereupon, his being aptly entitled to claim parity vis-a-vis meteing of benefits, of, enhanced pay scale, with Senior Laboratory Technicians, rendering duties in the department of Health and Family Welfare AND (ii) though, in contradistinctivity thereof, though, the respondents herein stood respectively appointed as Laboratory Technician, in the department of Ayurveda, subsequent, to its bifurcation from the department of Health and Family Welfare, (iii) yet ipso facto thereupon they cannot, be stripped, of, their entitlement to claim parity with the petitioner in CWP(T) No. 2637 of 2008, (iv) given a notification borne, in, Annexure A-12 in CWP(T) No. 2637 of 2008, making, an apparent disclosure of the post of Laboratory Technician, being, re-nomenclatured besides being redesignated as Senior Laboratory Technician, (v) thereupon, dehors, the respondents concerned, subsequent to the bifurcation of the department of Ayurveda, from, the department of Health and Family Welfare, being appointed as Laboratory Technician, (vi) yet, enjoined the appellants to not depart, from, the mandate of Annexure A-12, borne in CWP(T) No. 2637 of 2008, (vii) especially when no apposite rules ARE placed on record, wherefrom, an evident demonstration, is made of subsequent, to the bifurcation of the department, of Ayurveda, from, the department of Health and Family Welfare, Rulesbeing brought on the statue book, permitting derogation, from, Annexure A-12, borne in CWP(T) No. 2637 of 2008. In the absence on record, of the aforesaid rules framed by the appellants herein, it was impermissible, for them to detract from the mandate, of Annexure A-12, borne in CWP(T) No. 2637 of 2008, given, the department of Ayurveda being, nowat, also under the control of the department of Health and Family Welfare. 4. In the absence on record, of the aforesaid rules framed by the appellants herein, it was impermissible, for them to detract from the mandate, of Annexure A-12, borne in CWP(T) No. 2637 of 2008, given, the department of Ayurveda being, nowat, also under the control of the department of Health and Family Welfare. 4. In aftermath, the reliance by the learned Single Judge, upon, a verdict pronounced in CWP(T) No. 2637 of 2008 wherein, the learned Single Judge of this Court, afforded parity vis-a-vis the respondents herein, with, respect to enhanced pay scales afforded to Senior Laboratory Technicians, working, in the department of Family and Health Welfare, hence does not, suffer from any infirmity. 5. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. In sequel, the judgment impugned before this Court is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No costs.