Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 811 (HP)

Brijesh Kumar v. State of H. P.

2022-12-12

SATYEN VAIDYA

body2022
JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. In both these petitions, petitioners have sought identical relief i.e. quashing of letter dated 23.10.2018, Annexure A-7, individually received by both the petitioners from the Executive Engineer, I&PH Division, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. whereby both of them have been asked to present their respective cases before the said authority. 2. Brief background is that the petitioner in CWPOA No. 93 of 2019 was initially appointed as Work Inspector on daily wage basis in the year 1987 and his services were regularized w.e.f. 01.01.1997. Petitioner was allowed the pay scale of Rs.1500-2100 at the time of regularization which was further revised to Rs.5000-8100. Vide office order dated 21.04.2006, respondents conveyed the withdrawal of benefit of revision of pay scale from the petitioner. 3. Petitioner approached the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal against the office order dated 21.04.2006. The original application of the petitioner was transferred to this Court and was registered as CWP(T) No. 13683 of 2008. The said petition was decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 18.11.2009 in following terms : “The petitioner was granted the pay scale of Rs.5000-8100 w.e.f. 1.1.1997 vide office order Annexure A-3. However, the same was withdrawn vide Annexure A-4 dated 21st April, 2006. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been heard before the issuance of Annexure A-4. The petitioner has been visited with civil and evil consequences. Consequently, Annexure A-4 dated 21st April, 2006 is quashed and set-aside. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.” 4. Petitioner in CWPOA No. 124 of 2019 had also approached this Court with identical facts. His petition was registered as CWP(T) No.13688 of 2008 and was decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 18.11.2009 in same terms as CWP(T) No. 13683 of 2008. 5. Perusal of orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP(T) No. 13683 of 2008 and CWP(T) No. 13688 of 2008 reveal that the office order dated 21.04.2006 was quashed and set-aside only on the technical ground that the petitioners were not heard before the issuance of said office order, which had consequence of visiting petitioner with civil and evil consequences. However, liberty was reserved to the respondents to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 6. However, liberty was reserved to the respondents to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 6. Admittedly, these orders attained finality and were not challenged by either of the parties. 7. The impugned annexure i.e. correspondence dated 23.10.2018, Annexure P-7, received by the petitioners in both the instant cases reveal that now the respondents have afforded an opportunity to the petitioners to present their oral or written version against the proposed action of the respondents. 8. The petitioners have placed reliance on a judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 24.03.2022 in CWPOA No.3145 of 2019 and other connected matters, whereunder certain parameters have been prescribed under which the employer in the public employment is held not entitled to recover the amount from the employee in certain given situations. 9. Keeping in view the fact that no recovery has yet been sought from the petitioners. The prayer made by them by way of instant petitions is pre-mature. Petitioners are at liberty to respond to the correspondence dated 23.10.2018, Annexure A-7, in accordance with law, which may include their assertion on the basis of aforesaid judgment passed in CWPOA No. 3145 of 2019. 10. In view of above discussion, both the petitions are disposed of with the observations that petitioners shall be at liberty to submit their response to correspondence dated 23.10.2018, Annexure A-7, and take all grounds therein available to them in accordance with law. The competent authority i.e. respondent No.4, is directed to decide the matter after affording due opportunity to the petitioners to represent their case and also by taking into consideration the applicability of judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.3145 of 2019. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.