Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 895 (HP)

Surinder Singh v. State of H. P.

2022-12-30

SATYEN VAIDYA

body2022
JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “i). That the impugned action of the respondent whereby the applicants have reduced daily from Rs. 82.50 per day to Rs. 65/- per day (A/3) may be termed illegal & arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of constitution of India and same may be quashed and set aside. Further the respondents be directed to pay the applicant daily of Rs. 82.50 per day as was being paid to the applicant till August 2005. (ii) That the respondents may be directed to regularize the services of the applicant form the date he was appointed as Lab. Attendant on daily wages.” 2. Petitioner was initially appointed as Lab Attendant by respondents on daily wage basis w.e.f. 18.8.1998. He was being paid daily wage at the rate of Rs. 65/- per day. The daily wage of the petitioner was enhanced to Rs. 70.50/- per day w.e.f. 19.4.2001. As per revised daily wage rate, issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, the daily wage payable to petitioner was enhanced to Rs. 82.50/- per day w.e.f. 18.8.2003. 3. Petitioner is aggrieved against office order Annexure A-3 dated 10.3.2005 whereby the daily wage of Lab Attendants engaged in Schools/Colleges were reduced to Rs. 65/- per day retrospectively w.e.f. 15.8.2003. 4. Petitioner approached the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal immediately by filing O.A. No. 2629 of 2005, which on abolition of the Tribunal came to be transferred to this Court and was registered as CWPOA No. 440 of 2019 i.e. the instant petition. 5. Despite number of opportunities availed by the respondents, no reply has been filed. Finally, the opportunity of respondents to file reply was closed vide order dated 10.11.2020. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 7. The conduct of respondents in not filing the reply to the averments made in the petition for more than fifteen years clearly shows that they have nothing to controvert the plea of petitioner. In absence of any reply from respondents, the factual aspect of the case is deemed to be admitted. Otherwise also from documents annexed with the petition, the averments made in the petition are duly supported. 8. Impugned order Annexure A-3 is without any reason or justification and hence cannot be sustained. In absence of any reply from respondents, the factual aspect of the case is deemed to be admitted. Otherwise also from documents annexed with the petition, the averments made in the petition are duly supported. 8. Impugned order Annexure A-3 is without any reason or justification and hence cannot be sustained. Though, a reference has been made to some Finance Department letter dated 18.8.2003, but no such letter has been placed on record. Once the category of Lab Attendants engaged on daily wage basis was paid at the rate of Rs. 70.50/- per day and then enhanced to Rs. 82.50/- per day, it could be reduced only for the reasons, which could have justification in rules. Nothing has been shown by respondents as to why such regressive step was taken. 9. Petitioner has specifically stated in the petition that he was being paid Rs. 82.50/- per day since August, 2004 and his daily wage could not be reduced. Evidently, an order having civil and evil consequences against petitioner was issued at his back and for such reason also order Annexure P-3 is bad in law. 10. Petitioner has further contended that the respondents have sought recovery of amount already paid to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 82.50/-. Such recovery, if any, is clearly against law, as declared by a Division Bench of this Court, in CWPOA No. 3145 of 2019, dated 24th March, 2022, titled as S.S. Chaudhary vs. State of H.P. & Others decided alongwith connected matters, wherein it has been held by this Court that no recovery from employees belonging to Class-III & Class-IV can be effected. It has been further observed that recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued, is impermissible. Thus, the case of the petitioner is also covered by the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in S.S. Chaudhary’s case supra. 11. In result, the petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure A-3 dated 10.3.2005 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed not to recover any amount from the petitioner in pursuance to Annexure P-3. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.