Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 185 (HP)

Rustam Singh v. State of H. P.

2023-03-27

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2023
JUDGMENT : AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “(i) That the order dated 14.5.2009 Annexure P3 may please be directed to be implemented in its letter and spirit. The entire service benefits including seniority, promotion be granted to the petitioner including the salary for the period w.e.f. 1.7.1999 to 1.7.2000. (ii) That the impugned orders dated 2.6.2010 Annexure P4 and dated 3.7.2010 Annexure P5 may please be directed to be modified and to give the entire service and consequential benefits including seniority, promotion and salary as the petitioner is deemed to be in service w.e.f. 1.7.1999. (iii) Costs of the petition may please be awarded in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that after completion of B.Sc. the petitioner applied for the post of Agriculture Extension Officer. He appeared in an interview for the said post under the category of Other Backward Class (hereinafter to be referred as ‘OBC’) (General), on 31.05.1999. Despite the fact that the petitioner was eligible for being considered for appointment against the post in issue, yet he was not given appointment on the ground that he has crossed the prescribed age limit for recruitment to the government job. This was done in terms of communication (Annexure P1), dated 08.12.1999. As per the petitioner, thereafter, he again appeared in interview for appointment against the post of Agriculture Extension Officer under OBC (General) Category on 15/16.05.2000. As he was eligible for appointment against the post in issue, this time he was appointed as Agriculture Extension Officer vide letter dated 14.06.2000 and he joined his duties w.e.f. 01.07.2000. 3. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the factum of his being arbitrarily denied for appointment against the post in issue in the year 1999,made representation to the respondents and vide order dated 14.05.2009 (Annexure P3), the grievance of the petitioner was found to be genuine by the Department and in terms of this order, the authority concerned ordered that appointment of the petitioner as Agriculture Extension Officer against OBC (General) Category on batch-wise basis shall be deemed w.e.f. 01.07.1999, above his junior in OBC Category, so as to confer upon him seniority and other benefits. This was followed by issuance of Office Order dated 07.06.2010 (Annexure P4), in terms whereof, though seniority was granted to the petitioner against the post of Agriculture Extension Officer w.e.f. 01.07.1999, but the financial benefits were given to him notionally w.e.f. 01.07.1999 to 30.06.2000. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that as denial of job to the petitioner in the year 1999 was on erroneous act of the respondents, therefore, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the acts of omission of the respondents and the grievance of the petitioner is very limited at this stage and all that he is asking for is that he should be given actual monetary benefits w.e.f. 01.07.1999 upto 30.06.2000. 5. The petition is opposed by the State, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner has been granted by the Department whatever was due to him and as he actually had not performed his duties w.e.f. 01.07.1999 upto 30.06.2000, therefore, there is no infirmity in granting notional benefits him w.e.f. 01.07.1999. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that as the petitioner has been duly compensated, both financially as well as seniority wise, therefore, there is no merit in the present petition and the same be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as also learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 7. As already mentioned hereinabove, the grievance of the petitioner is in a very narrow compass. The petitioner is seeking salary w.e.f. 01.07.1999 upto 30.06.2000, against the post of Agriculture Extension Officer. It is not in dispute that despite being selected against the post of Agriculture Extension Officer on batch-wise basis against a post reserved for OBC (General) Category, the petitioner was not offered appointment on the ground that he had become overage. However, subsequently, the Department itself admitted in terms of order dated 14.05.2009 that the petitioner was wrongfully denied appointment against the post of Agriculture Extension Officer on batch-wise basis w.e.f. 01.07.1999. 8. Not only this, in terms of order dated 14.05.2009, the petitioner has been ordered to be in service as an Agriculture Extension Officer w.e.f. 01.07.1999 and it has also been mentioned in this order that the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service w.e.f. 01.07.1999 for the purpose of seniority and other benefits. 8. Not only this, in terms of order dated 14.05.2009, the petitioner has been ordered to be in service as an Agriculture Extension Officer w.e.f. 01.07.1999 and it has also been mentioned in this order that the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service w.e.f. 01.07.1999 for the purpose of seniority and other benefits. There is no rider in order dated 14.05.2009 that monetary benefits that were now accruable to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.07.1999 were to be on notional basis only as upto the date he actually joined as an Agriculture Extension Officer. 9. That being the case, denial of actual salary to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.07.1999 upto 30.06.2000 in terms of Annexure P4 is not sustainable in the eyes of laws and the same is held to be bad. 10. The petitioner obviously cannot be made to suffer for the acts of omission of the Department and in these circumstances, as it is the own admission of the Department that the petitioner was wrongfully denied service w.e.f. 01.07.1999, this Court is of the considered view that interest of justice will be served in case respondent-State pays to the petitioner the actual salary w.e.f. 01.07.1999 upto 30.06.2000, of the post of Agriculture Extension Officer, as it was at the relevant time. Ordered accordingly. 11. The petition stands disposed of in above terms. It is made clear that in case this order is complied with within a period of two months from today, then the salary amount shall not entail any interest. But, if the order is not complied with within a period of two months from today, then 6% interest will accrue on the amount that is payable to the petitioner as from the date of filing of the writ petition. 12. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stands disposed of.