Dismissed

Csk Hpkvv v. B.L.Dhiman

Himachal Pradesh HC31 May 2017LPA/537/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld the Single Judge's judgment which held that the petitioner is entitled to higher pay based on his officiation of the Comptroller post under FR-49, rejecting the University's challenge regarding the necessity of State Government clarification.

What did the court decide?

The Letter Patent Appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding the petitioner's right to higher pay was upheld.

Csk Hpkvv Vs B.L.Dhiman — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶2

LPA No.537 of 2011 Date of decision: 31.05.2017

¶3

Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Krishi Vishvavidalaya, Palampur

¶4

….Appellant-Respondent

¶5

Versus

¶6

B.L. Dhiman ….Respondent-Petitioner

¶7

Coram

¶8

The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

¶9

Whether approved for reporting ?¹ Yes.

¶10

For the Appellant: Mr.Lokender Paul Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.Dinesh Thakur, Advocate.

¶11

Per Sandeep Sharma,J.:

¶12

By way of instant Letter Patent Appeal, appellant-respondent-University (hereinafter referred to as the ‘respondent-University’) has laid challenge to the judgment dated 23.07.2010 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP(T) No.8123/2008, (for short ‘impugned judgment’) , whereby learned Single, while setting aside the order of fixation of pay, dated 23.11.2001 (Annexure A-15), of respondent-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the `petitioner’) directed the respondent to release the higher pay to the petitioner for the period he has officiated against

¶13

1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement ?

¶14

¶15

the post of Comptroller, i.e. 15.10.1999 to 27.1.2000 and 13.11.2000 to 24.9.2001.

¶16

2. It is undisputed that the petitioner, pursuant to advertisement issued by the respondent-University for filling up post of Deputy Comptroller in the pay scale of Rs.37005700, submitted his application through proper channel and the Selection Committee, after adjudging his suitability, appointed him on the post of Deputy Comptroller on 24.12.1996. It also emerge from the record that pursuant to the request, having been made by the petitioner, case of the petitioner was decided by the State Government vide order dated 29.8.1997 for absorption w.e.f. 1.8.1997. However, the respondent-University absorbed him w.e.f. 7.1.1999. Since the petitioner opted to receive the pro-rata pensionary benefits w.e.f. 24.12.1996, his pay was fixed after absorption w.e.f. 1.1.1997 by the Registrar vide letter dated 10.6.1999. Pay fixation order of the petitioner was sent to the then Joint Comptroller (LA) in the University, who pointed out that since the petitioner took retirement, his pay was to be fixed under the relevant rules applicable to re-employed pensioners. However, as a matter of fact, the then Comptroller clarified the position that the pay of the petitioner was rightly fixed under the normal rules as per the decision of the Board of Management on the recommendations of the Finance Committee vide item

¶17

¶18

No.13(5) in its meeting held on 27.4.1987, but, the Registrar sought clarification from the State Government vide letter dated 1.7.2000, who in turn clarified the matter on 26.6.2001 and accordingly, pay of the petitioner came to be re-fixed in terms of Annexure A-5, dated 23.11.2001.

¶19

3. After having gone through the record of the case, this Court finds that pay of the petitioner was fixed in terms of decision of the Board of Management dated 27.4.1987 and there was no occasion, as such, to the Registrar of the respondent-University to seek clarification from the State Government. Otherwise also the petitioner is/was entitled to the benefit of FR-49 as he has worked against the higher post of Comptroller w.e.f. 15.10.1999 to 27.1.2000 and 13.11.2000 to 24.9.2001.

¶20

4. It is undisputed that petition’s pay was fixed in terms of Office Order dated 10.6.1999 (Annexure A-5), consequent upon his appointment and subsequent permanent absorption in the University services w.e.f. 1.8.1997 as Deputy Comptroller in the pay scale of Rs.37005700 (UGC). Moreover, perusal of communication dated 20.3.1989 (Annexure A-8) clearly suggests that Comptroller repeatedly reiterated that pay of petitioner has rightly been fixed, hence, learned Single Judge rightly came to the conclusion that once decision had been taken by the highest decision making body of the respondent i.e. Board of

¶21

¶22

Management, the matter was not required to be sent for clarification because clarification, if any, was required to be sought in the cases where the respondent-University has not framed its own Statute/Instructions etc.

¶23

5. In the instant case, plain reading of Statute 7.27 clearly reveals that in those cases where conditions of service are/were not covered by the provisions of Statute, the conditions of service are/were required to be decided in accordance with the Rules laid down by the Himachal Pradesh Government for its own employees or in such other manner as the Vice-Chancellor with the approval of the Board or under the powers delegated to him by the Board may deem fit. In the instant case, the Board of Management took conscious decision vide notification dated 20.3.1989 to regulate the pay in old cases and future cases of the employees, who joined the University on deputation/Foreign Service, hence, learned Single Judge rightly concluded that it was not open to the Registrar to seek clarification from the State Government. Rather decision taken by the respondentUniversity on the basis of notification dated 20.3.1989 was to be made applicable in its letter and spirit.

¶24

6. Leaving everything aside, we find that there is no dispute that the petitioner had officiated on the higher post as Comptroller for two spells, i.e.l 15.10.1999 to 27.1.2000 and 13.11.2000 to 24.9.2001 and as such, he has been

¶25

¶26

rightly held entitled for the benefit under FR-49. Since the petitioner worked as Comptroller i.e. a higher post, benefit under FR 49 ought to have been granted to him by respondent-University.

¶27

7. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove, we see no reason to interfere in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, which otherwise appears to be based upon proper appreciation of rules occupying the field and as such the same is upheld. We have also been informed that the petitioner stands retired. Therefore, this appeal fails and is dismissed, accordingly.

¶28

8. All interim orders are vacated and all the

¶29

pending miscellaneous applications are disposed of.

¶30

(Sanjay Karol) Acting Chief Justice

¶31

May 31, 2017 (aks)

¶32

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

Csk Hpkvv v. B.L.Dhiman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Csk Hpkvv v. B.L.Dhiman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Court on Its Own Motion Vs the Chief Secretary

Chumana Devi Vs Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and Others

Vikas Chauhan Vs Prabodh Saxena and Others

Kamla Devi Vs State of Hp

Nischint Sharma Vs Prabodh Saxena and Others

Csk Hpkvv Vs Savitri Devi