Disposed

Ravinder Kumar v. State

Himachal Pradesh HC15 Dec 2010CWP/1683/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the termination of the petitioner's services as a Drawing Master. Relying on a recent judgment in a connected matter, the Court delegated the decision on the factual dispute regarding the petitioner's or a private respondent's appointment to an Inquiry Committee to be completed by 31.1.2011.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of the petition and remanded the matter to the Inquiry Committee to take a final decision by 31.1.2011.

Ravinder Kumar Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

CWP No. 1683 of 2007. Decided on: 15.12.2010.

¶3

__________________________________________________ Ravinder Kumar. … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. … Respondents.

¶4

___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge.

¶5

Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes.

¶6

For the petitioner : Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No.1to3 : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy.A.G.. For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Digvijay Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No.5 : Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Advocate.

¶7

¶8

Justice V.K. Sharma,J. (Oral).

¶9

The petitioner was engaged as Drawing Master by respondent No.4-Parents Teacher Association (PTA) in Government Middle School, Kuinr, Tehsil Anni, District Kullu, H.P. vide resolution dated 31.3.2006, Annexure PD. Later on his services were terminated by an oral order, dated 30.9.2006. Consequently, private respondent No.5 was engaged against the resultant vacancy on 31.10.2006. Being aggrieved, the petitioner represented to respondent No.2, who vide order dated 29.8.2007, Annexure PF, revoked the termination. However, in the meantime, since private respondent No.5 had already been engaged in place of the petitioner, she apprehending termination of her services pursuant to order dated 29.8.2007, Annexure PF, filed CWP No. 1398 of 2007, titled Miss Sita Devi vs. State of H.P. and others, wherein the present petitioner was

¶10

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.

¶11

¶12

impleaded as respondent No.6, which was decided by this Court vide judgment dated 23.11.2010, text whereof is as

¶13

under:-

¶14

“ The writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:

¶15

‘It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed throughout with cost and the impugned order dated 29.8.2007 passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexure P-6 may kindly be quashed and set aside after summoning the entire record and further the respondents No.1 to 5 may be restrained to terminate the services of the petitioner and justice be done. Such other or further relief as may be deemed just and proper may also be passed while allowing this writ petition and justice be done.’

¶16

2. In view of the recent instruction issued by the Director, Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh vide communication dated 24th September, 2009, the case requires fresh consideration in the light of the said communication. The relevant portion of the communication of the Director, Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh reads as follows:

¶17

‘Refer to letter No. EDN-Kha(7)3706-1 dated 3.9.2009 from the Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh addressed to this directorate and copy endorsed to you and others vide which the government has asked to move an application immediate before the chairman of the concerned enquiry committee in view of the decision of CWP No. 525/2009 titled as Ravinder Singh Vs. State and CWP No. 2632/2009 titled as Koyal Kumar Vs. State wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh while setting aside the orders of the committee has directed that Committee after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the other respondents can look into the matter and decide whether the appointment of the petitioner was valid or not. The committee while deciding the issue will keep into consideration of observation of the Hon’ble High Court made in CWPs. The copy of the judgment/orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court in CWP No. 2632/2009 titled as

¶18

¶19

Koyal Kumar Vs. State is also being sent to all the Deputy Directors.

¶20

Therefore, you are directed to comply with the directions of the Government and take action in the matter accordingly.’

¶21

3. In view of the above clarification issued by the

¶22

Director of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. However, we make it clear that it will be open to the Enquiry Committee to consider the matter afresh in the light of the instruction referred to above. The needful, if required, shall be done expeditiously from the date of the production of a copy of this judgment by either side. It is also made clear that in the cases of those teachers who are working in the schools, in case they have not been paid their due wages, the same shall be paid and the State shall ensure that the required grant-in-aid is given to the Schools, as per the Rules forthwith. In case the vacancy still exists, we make it clear that it will be open to the respondents to re-engage the petitioner, subject to the outcome of the inquiry and in case, the petitioner is thus re-engaged, he shall be paid the eligible benefits during the period of service.

¶23

4. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.”

¶24

Admittedly, private respondent No.5 is presently working against the post.

¶25

In view of the above judgment dated 23.11.2010 in CWP No. 1398 of 2007, it shall be expedient and in the interest of justice that with a view to obviate the possibility of any conflicting judgment being rendered, the present petition is disposed of and the matter is relegated to the Inquiry Committee to consider the entire matter with

¶26

¶27

regard to appointment of the petitioner/private respondent No.5 as Drawing Master on PTA basis afresh in the light of the instructions referred to in the case of Miss Sita Devi versus State of H.P. and others (supra) and take final decision in the matter latest by 31.1.2011 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and private respondent No.5, if so desired. They shall also be afforded an opportunity of making representations, if any, if so advised. Needless to say that with a view to ensure uniformity, the Inquiry Committee shall take into consideration both the judgments in CWP No. 1398 of 2007 and this judgment so that the possibility of any conflicting decision being arrived at is ruled out.

¶28

The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.

¶29

Dasti copy.

¶30

(V.K. Sharma) Judge. December 15, 2010. (cr)

Ravinder Kumar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravinder Kumar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Lal Vs State

Diwakar Ram Vs State

Anjana Devi Vs State

Baljeet Singh Vs State

Salommi Verma Vs State

Pradeep Kumar Vs State