Disposed

Rajesh Kumar Walia v. State of Hp and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Aug 2022CWP/1404/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought quashing of rejected representation and directives for pay step-up, arrears, and pension revisions. The Court disposed of the matter by directing the respondents to decide the case for pay step-up expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to decide the petitioner's case for pay step-up expeditiously within three weeks.

Rajesh Kumar Walia Vs State of Hp… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

-1-

¶2

lIN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

ON THE 2^nd AUGUST, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶6

¶7

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA

¶8

CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 1404 OF 2022

¶9

Between:-

¶10

RAJESH KUMAR WALIA, S/O SH. BARRU RAM, AGE 58 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 17 JAWAHAR NAGAR, DHARAMSHALA, DISTRICT KANGRRA, H.P.-176213.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(SH. RAMESH KAUNDAL, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND

¶14

1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES & CONSUMER AFFAIRS SHIMLA171002.

¶15

2. MANAGING DIRECTOR HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION.

¶16

3. AREA MANAGER H.P. STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD. DHARMSHALA-176213.

¶17

....RESPONDENTS

¶18

(SH. VIKRANT CHANDEL, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR R-1.).

¶19

-2-

¶20

(SH. TARUN SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND 3).

¶21

This petition coming on for orders this day, Hon’ble

¶22

Ms. Justice Sabina passed the following :

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Petitioner has filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs:-

¶25

“i) The Annexure -13 & P-14 conveying the rejection of representation of the petitioner may kindly be quashed.

¶26

ii) The respondents may kindly be issued appropriate writ or direction to step up the pay of the petitioner to the level of his junior and Sh. Arun Kumar Sood on 1.4.2006.

¶27

iii) The respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner normal increment on 1.6.2009 on placement in higher scale of 5910-20200 + 2800 Grade Pay in view of instructions Annexure P-5.

¶28

iv) The respondents may kindly be directed to step up the pay of the petitioner to the level of his junior Sh. Arun Kumar Sood on the date from which he was drawing higher pay than the petitioner.

¶29

v) The respondents may kindly also be directed to revise all retiral benefits accordingly and

¶30

-3-

¶31

release the arrears of pay, pension & allied benefits within a time bound period.”

¶32

Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. Respondents No. 2 and 3 have filed their reply. Para Nos. 4 and 8 of the reply, on merits, read as under:-

¶33

“4. In reply to this para, it is submitted that consequent upon revision of pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.2006, the pay of the petitioner and next to his immediate junior Sh. Arun Kumar Sood was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.5910 20200+1950 Grade Pay at the equal stage of Rs. 10200+1950-Rs.12150 in respect of both the officials. The date of annual increment of the Petitioner was 01.06.2006, whereas, the date of increment in respect of Sh. Arun Kumar Sood happened to be on 01.04.2006. Consequently, the latter got increment two months earlier than the Petitioner, raising the pay of Sh. Arun Kumar Sood to Rs. 10570+1950-Rs.12520, whereas the Petitioner arrived at this stage on 01.06.2006.

¶34

In the corollary of instructions issued with reference to Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009, it was clarified as under;

¶35

“Provided that the next increment of a Government employee whose pay is fixed on the first day of January, 2006 at the same stage as the one, fixed for another Government employee junior to him in the same cadre and drawing pay at a lower or equal stage than his senior and draw in the existing scale, shall be granted on the same date as admissible to his junior, if the date of increment of the junior happens to be earlier".

¶36

-4-

¶37

Since the Petitioner never brought this fact that he was getting less pay for two months than his junior, so the benefit of the above provision could not be given to the Petitioner. Moreover, the pay fixations of all the employees are done independently and not in a comparative manner in their service record and due to the pay fixations being routine matters, the anomaly could not be noticed earlier by the Respondent Corporation. Thus, keeping in view the above stated facts and circumstances of the present case, the order to prepone the increment of the Petitioner from 01.06.2006 to 01.04.2006 will be issued separately.

¶38

xxx xxx xxx

¶39

8. (The para number is wrongly written as 7). The contents of this para are partially admitted to be correct. It is submitted that the Petitioner was placed in the cadre of Jr. Assistant w.e.f. 01.01.2009 in the pay scale of Rs.4400 7000 (prerevised) Rs.5910-20200+2800GP (revised). Accordingly, the pay of the Petitioner on his placement in the cadre of Jr. Assistant was worked out as hereunder:

¶40

Rs. 11340+ 2800=14140 with date of next increment on 01.01.2010.

¶41

In view of the clarification regarding placement in the higher pay scale issued vide letter No. FIN (PR)B(7)-1/1998-III dated April, 2002 of the Pr. Secretary (Finance) to the Govt. of H.P. which is reproduced herein for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court as under:

¶42

"The date of annual increment on placement in the next higher pay scale on completion of requisite years of service shall fall due after completion of 12 months from the date of such placement if it is at the minimum of that TEST Scale. In case, the placement is at a stage equal to (i.e. the stage of pay in the existing lower scale)

¶43

-5-

¶44

or higher than t minimum of the higher scale the date of annual increment shall remain unchanged."

¶45

The pay of the petitioner was required to be fixed as hereunder:

¶46

Pay as on 31.12.2008 as Clerk	Rs. 11340+1950=Rs. 13290
Pay to be fixed in the post of Jr. Assistant.	Rs. 11340 + 2800= 14140
Date of next increment.	01.04.2009

¶47

It is pertinent to mention here that the above referred provision for placement in the next higher pay scale and regularization of annual increment could not be implemented in its real essence and the date of annual increment of the incumbent was deferred to 01.01.2010 which was otherwise admissible w.e.f. 01.04.2009 as per submission made at preceding para 4.

¶48

In view of the above, the last pay fixed with annual increment date w.e.f. 01.01.2010 is required to be rectified to the above extent.”

¶49

Keeping in view the reply filed by respondents No. 2 and 3 and without adverting to the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition with a direction to the respondents to decide the case of the petitioner for step-up of his pay expeditiously, in accordance with law, preferably within three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. In case the petitioner still feels dissatisfied with the relief granted to him by the respondents, in terms of the reply filed by them,

¶50

-6-

¶51

the petitioner would be at liberty to approach this Court for the

¶52

redressal of his grievance, if so advised.

¶53

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶54

(Sabina) Judge

¶55

(Satyen Vaidya)

¶56

2^nd August, 2022 Judge (kck)

Rajesh Kumar Walia v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Walia v. State of Hp and Ors.

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

Dushyant and Anr. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Yashwant Singh Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Jeet Ram Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Hpseb Ltd. and Anr. Vs Anil Kumar and Anr.

Hpseb Ltd. and Anr. Vs Prem Dutt and Anr.