Dismissed

Sushil Kumar v. Som Raj Kalia

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Sept 2020COPCT/155/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging violation of a Tribunal order reinstating him. The court observed that the issue of pay disparity with his junior arose after the original application and was beyond the Tribunal's scope. The petition was closed with liberty to file a comprehensive suit for redressal.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed and disposed of with liberty to file a comprehensive petition for redressal of grievances regarding pay disparity.

Sushil Kumar Vs Som Raj Kalia — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶3

COPCT No. 155 of 2020

¶4

Date of Decision: September 7, 2020

Sushil Kumar

…Petitioner.

Versus

Dr. Som Raj Kalia & another

¶9

..Respondents.

¶10

Coram:

¶11

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

¶12

Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Mr.P.D. Nanda, Advocate, through Video Conferencing.

¶13

For the Respondents: Mr.Raju Ram Rahi, Deputy Advocate General, through Video Conferencing.

¶14

Vivek Singh Thakur, J (oral)

¶15

This petition has been filed for violation of order dated 29.02.2016, passed by erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in T.A. No.1792 of 2015.

¶16

Operative portion of the said order is as under:-

¶17

“10. Consequently, the orders of termination of the applicant Annexure P-11 and P-12, dated 03.11.2014 and 05.11.2014, respectively, are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits. This order shall not preclude the respondents from initiation of appropriate proceedings or action as warranted in

¶18

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶19

¶20

the facts and circumstances of the case against the applicant, in accordance with law.”

¶21

Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that order passed by erstwhile Tribunal was complied with on 18.04.2016, by re-engaging the petitioner and in pursuant thereto, petitioner had submitted his joining on the same day. He further submits that thereafter, services of the petitioner, were also regularized vide order dated 30.11.2016, placed on record by the petitioner himself as Annexure P-1 alongwith affidavit dated 05.07.2020, filed on his behalf. In this order, it has been specifically mentioned that he has been regularized from the date of regularization of his juniors on 16.05.2015 with all consequential benefits.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that juniors of the petitioner have been engaged on a higher pay scale than the pay scale, on which, petitioner has been engaged.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that junior of the petitioner, who has been regularized on 23.06.2015, has been given higher initial pay i.e. `9880/-, whereas, petitioner has been given a lesser initial pay, on his regularization, than his junior.

¶24

This issue raised by learned counsel for the petitioner has not been adjudicated by erstwhile Tribunal as it has arisen subsequent to decision in Original Application and thus it is beyond the scope and ambit of this contempt petition and otherwise also, there is nothing on record to reflect that what

¶25

¶26

was the initial pay granted at the time of regularization of the petitioner and, therefore, it would be better for the petitioner that this issue is adjudicated in comprehensive petition.

¶27

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, present contempt petition is closed and disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate comprehensive petition for redressal of his grievances and in such eventuality, delay and laches will not come in his way, as he, under bonafide belief, has been pursuing the said cause in this contempt petition. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶28

(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.

¶29

September 7, 2020 (Purohit)

Sushil Kumar v. Som Raj Kalia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar v. Som Raj Kalia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Hp Vs Kharak Singh

Roshan Lal Vs Arun Kumar Sharma

Kusum Lata Vs Rohit Jamwal

Bajaj Allianz Gic Vs Shakuntala Devi

Lac Vs Jhabe Ram

Lac Vs Hansa Devi