Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 583 (HP)

Vidya Parkash v. State of H. P.

2025-04-01

SATYEN VAIDYA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. The instant petition has been filed for the following substantive reliefs: “(i) That the respondents may be directed to make the payment of arrears for the period 1.3.1998 to 19.5.1998 on account of Pro-Step-Up granted to applicant after completing 24 years service as per order dated 25.8.99 (Annexure A-1). (ii) That the respondents may be directed to make the payment of arrears to the applicant for the period 20.5.1998 to June, 1999 on account of fixation of pay at Rs.8650/- w.e.f. 20.5.1998 ?? promotion from the post of Shastri (OT) Teacher to Trained Graduate Teacher. (iii) That the respondents may be directed to make the payment of arrears to the applicant w.e.f. 1.1.1996 to 1.4.1990 on account of revision of Pay Scale. (iv) That the respondents may be directed to make the payment of above arrears with interest @ 12%.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined Department of Education, Government of Himachal Pradesh on 01.03.1974 as OT (Shastri). During his service, the petitioner passed B.Ed. course from Himachal Pradesh University in 1996-1997. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of TGT(Arts) vide order dated 02.05.1998. Petitioner joined on the said post on 20.05.1998. 3. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that he has not been paid arrears for the period 01.03.1998 to 20.05.1998 as per fixation of his pay after grant of proficiency step-up allowed in his favour w.e.f. 01.03.1998. The petitioner claims that his pay was fixed at Rs.8,375/- after grant of proficiency step-up in his favour w.e.f. 01.03.1998. The petitioner is also aggrieved against the non-payment of arrears for the period 20.05.1998 to June 1999 as per fixation of his pay after promotion to the post of TGT(Arts). For such purposes, the petitioner claims to have been fixed for the purposes of salary at Rs.8,650/- per month. In addition, the petitioner has also alleged non-payment of arrears of revision of pay scale as Shastri from 01.01.1986 to April 1990. 4. The respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner and have alleged the same to be fallacious. It has been submitted that the petitioner was granted proficiency step-up in the scale of Rs.1800-3200 by fixing his pay at Rs.1800/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Thereafter, the second proficiency step-up was allowed to him in the scale of Rs.2000-3500 w.e.f. 01.03.1992 and his pay was fixed at Rs.2,500/-. It has been submitted that the petitioner was granted proficiency step-up in the scale of Rs.1800-3200 by fixing his pay at Rs.1800/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Thereafter, the second proficiency step-up was allowed to him in the scale of Rs.2000-3500 w.e.f. 01.03.1992 and his pay was fixed at Rs.2,500/-. As per the respondents, the petitioner was not entitled to two proficiency step-ups. On such premise, the fixation of pay of petitioner is stated to be wrongly fixed. The respondents thus, claim the recovery of excess amount from the petitioner. As regards the arrears claimed by the petitioner for the period 20.05.1998 to June 1999, it has been contended that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of FR 22(1)a(i) as he was already drawing the pay scale of Rs.5480- 8925 in the lower grade, which was also the initial pay scale of promotional post. 5. On 23.02.2011, this Court had allowed the respondents to file supplementary affidavit. Accordingly, an affidavit dated 15.03.2011 was filed by then then Director, Elementary Education, reiterating the same stand that the second proficiency step-up was erroneously given to petitioner. As per the contents of this affidavit, the petitioner was to become entitled for benefit of ACP from 01.05.1998 after completion of 8 years w.e.f. 01.05.1990. With respect to the arrears claimed by the petitioner for the period 20.05.1998 to June 1999, also the same stand, as taken in the original reply, was reiterated. As regards the claim of arrears of revision of pay scale from 01.01.1986 to April 1990, it was stated that since the petitioner had already been fixed at higher pay and the recoveries were liable to be effected from him, his claim was not permissible. 6. The petitioner filed a counter affidavit dated 14.03.2012 and stated that the respondents had withdrawn the benefit of step-up of pay given to him w.e.f. 01.03.1992 vide office order dated 02.12.2002. The petitioner placed a copy of said order on record as Annexure-B with the counter affidavit. He further submitted that office order dated 01.12.2002 was assailed by petitioner in CWP(T) No.10694 of 2008 before this Court and the said order was quashed and set aside vide judgment dated 23.03.2010. It was also submitted by the petitioner that in compliance to the aforesaid judgment dated 23.03.2010, the respondents had withdrawn the office order dated 02.12.2002. 7. He further submitted that office order dated 01.12.2002 was assailed by petitioner in CWP(T) No.10694 of 2008 before this Court and the said order was quashed and set aside vide judgment dated 23.03.2010. It was also submitted by the petitioner that in compliance to the aforesaid judgment dated 23.03.2010, the respondents had withdrawn the office order dated 02.12.2002. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 8. The petitioner has placed reliance on office order dated 25.08.1999 Annexure A-1, whereby he was allowed proficiency step-up w.e.f. 01.03.1998 and his pay was fixed at Rs.8375/-. The issuance of this document has not been denied by the respondents nor has any material been produced on record to show that the office order Annexure A-1 was revoked or withdrawn at any stage. The defence raised by the respondents is that the petitioner had wrongly been granted proficiency step-up w.e.f. 01.03.1992 and for such reason recoveries were due from him. As noticed above, the petitioner has placed on record a copy of judgment passed by this Court in CWP(T) No.10694 of 2008 dated 23.03.2010 and consequent office order issued by the Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Kullu, whereby office order dated 02.12.2002 was withdrawn. The respondents are claiming the benefit of office order dated 02.12.2002, whereby the proficiency step-up granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.03.1995 was held to be bad. The said office order dated 02.12.2002 having already been set aside by this Court and subsequently withdrawn by the respondents, cannot be now used to the detriment of the petitioner. 9. The petitioner has also placed on record his pay fixation order after being promoted to the post of TGT(Arts). His pay was fixed at Rs.8,650/-. The stand of the respondents that the petitioner was drawing the same salary in the lower grade has remained unsubstantiated. There also is no rebuttal to the pay fixation order relied upon by the petitioner. The respondents have not shown that the office order was revoked or withdrawn at any stage. Thus, the denial of the claim of the petitioner by the respondents does not appear to be having any legal backing. The respondents, as a model employer, are required to consider the grievances of its employees, strictly in terms of Rules and with objective considerations, which in the instant case is missing. 10. Thus, the denial of the claim of the petitioner by the respondents does not appear to be having any legal backing. The respondents, as a model employer, are required to consider the grievances of its employees, strictly in terms of Rules and with objective considerations, which in the instant case is missing. 10. The respondents have also raised a plea that the petition was barred by limitation, as the same was not filed within the period prescribed under the Administrative Tribunals Act. The petition discloses that the petitioner was claiming arrears due for the years 1998-1999 and he had been making repeated representations even till February 2002. The petition was instituted by the petitioner in June 2002 and for such reason his claim cannot be said to be time barred. Even otherwise, this Court is examining the case of the petitioner in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as such, law of limitation will not strictly apply. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition also cannot be said to be barred by delay and laches. 11. In light of above discussion, the petition is allowed. Respondent No.2 is directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner, strictly in terms of observations made hereinabove and to pass a speaking order within a period of 8 weeks from the date of passing of this petition. 12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.