Dismissed

Udham Singh v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Aug 2022CWPOA/2212/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Shimla dismissed an original application filed by Class-III and IV employees against the State and Deputy Commissioner Shimla. The petitioners challenged delayed promotion levels despite alleged one-time relaxations in 1997 and 2005. The court examined the record, clarified that the relaxed quotas were adjustments against future 10% vacancies rather than additions to the base quo

What did the court decide?

Present petition dismissed along with all pending applications for lack of merit as government decisions were implemented.

Udham Singh Vs State of Hp — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

ON THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA

¶5

CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION) NO. 2212 OF 2020

¶6

Between:-

¶7

1. SH. UDHAM SINGH S/O KARAM SINGH R/O BAJOEWA, P.O. JAIS, TEHSIL THEOG, DISTT. SHIMLA, PRESENTLY SERVING AS CLASS-IV 9PEON) O/O TEHSILDAR, THEOG, DISTT. SHIMLA, H.P.

¶8

2. SH. JABAR SINGH S/O SHISHU RAM, R/O VILLAGE KOTI, P.O. LANASA, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DIOSTT. SHIMLA, PRESENTLY SERVING AS CLERK O/O TEHSIL OFFICE RAMPUR, DISTT. SHIMLA, H.P.

¶9

3. SH. CHET RAM S/O KANWAL RAM, R/O VILLAGE NEHRA, P.O. BEHALI, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTT. SHIMLA, H.P. PRESENTLY SERVING AS PEON DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIMLA, H.P.

¶10

4. SH. KRISHAN DASS S/O LATE SAMPATI DASS R/O VILLAGE KHALOG, P.O. JUBBARHATTI, TEHSIL & DISTT. SHIMLA, PRESENTLY SERVING AS CLERK O/O SUB-TEHSIL JUNGA, DISTT. SHIMLA, H.P.

¶11

5. SH. JEET RAM S/O LATE SHONK RAM, R/O VILLAGE BASHOG, P.O. JUBBARHATTI, TEHSIL & DISTT. SHIMLA, H.P

¶12

6. SH. NAND LAL PRESENTLY SERVING AS CLERK,

¶13

¶14

O/O DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHIMLAH.P

¶15

7. SH. SUKH CHAIN PRESENTLY SERVING AS JAMADAR TEHSIL OFFICE JUBBAL, DISTT. SHIMLA, H.P.

¶16

8. SH. KRISHAN LAL PRESENTLY SERVING AS JAMADAR, SUB-TEHSIL OFFICE, TIKKAR, TEHSIL ROHROO, DISTT. SHIMLA, H.P.

¶17

PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY MR. RAJESHWAR THAKUR, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND

¶20

1. STATE O F HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE) TO THE GOVT. OF H.P., SHIMLA

¶21

2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIMLA. DISTT. SHIMLA.H.P.

¶22

RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY MR. SUDHIR BHATNAGAR AND MR. NARINDER GULERIA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATES GENERAL WITH MR. SUNNY DHATWALIA, ASSISTANT ADVOCATE GENERAL)

¶24

¶25

This petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

Petitioners, who are working on Class III and IV posts under respondent No.2, filed OA No. 2857 of 2017 before erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which now stands transferred to this Court and registered as CWPOA No. 2212 of 2020, praying therein for the following main reliefs:

¶28

“(i) That the respondents be directed to consider and promote the applicants as class-111/Clerks from due dates as per their seniority after adhering to the notification of the government dated 13.8.1997 and 23.6.2005 and

¶29

¶30

also the subsequent quota of 10% from year to year basis, with all consequential benefits.

¶31

(ii). That the directions may kindly be issued to the respondents to re-draw the seniority of the class iv employee of the Shimla district after giving promotion to the senior persons from due all consequential benefits tot eh applicant after exonerating him from all the charges.”

¶32

For summing up the facts, it may be noted that vide letter No. PER(AP-III)A(3)-2-loose-III, dated 13.8.1997, respondent-State granted one time relaxation in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of all departments (except Secretariat Administration Department) for promotion of eligible Class-IV employees to the post of Clerk subject to fulfillment of following conditions/criteria:

¶33

i. The vacant posts are in existence in the concerned departments.

¶34

ii. Posts filled up in excess of the prescribed 10% quota as a result of this one time relaxation against the existing vacancies shall be adjusted against the future vacancies of 10% quota.

¶35

iii. The excess quota for promotion under the proposed one time relaxation shall be restricted to 20% posts of vacancies available in the concerned departments within condition No. (i) above.

¶36

The reply filed by the State reveals that on 2.12.1997, a meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee of Deputy Commissioner Office Shimla was held and it was observed that there are 178 sanctioned posts of Clerks, out of which 166 posts were filled up and 12 posts were lying vacant. It was decided that under one time relaxation quota of 20% for 166 posts, 33 posts fell to the share of Class IV employees, out of which 24 posts were already filled up from Class IV in normal course of promotion under 10% quota, leaving a balance of 9 posts, which were

¶37

¶38

filled up by promotion out of Class IV employees in order to implement the decision of the Government.

¶39

Again vide letter No. PER(AP-III)A(3)-2/80-III loose dated 23.6.2005 (Annexure R-2/3), Government enhanced the promotion quota from 10% to 15% as a one time relaxation in the rules. Again a meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee was held on 7.1.2006 and it was found that 171 sanctioned posts of Clerks were there in the establishment of respondent No.2 and due to enhancement of quota from 10% to 15% as a measure of one time relaxation, 26 posts of Clerks were to be filled up out of Class IV employees and at that point of time, 22 Clerks were in existence, who had been promoted from the Class IV category.

¶40

Petitioners in their rejoinder refuted the claim of the respondents that decision of the Government had been implemented and Class IV employees had been promoted against the quota. The matter was listed on 7.7.2022, when this court observed that from the reply, it is not clear that whether 24 posts of Clerks filled up in normal course of promotion under 10% quota would be counted towards filling up of posts under 20% quota or otherwise. The State was asked to verify the aforesaid fact and matter was ordered to be listed on 25.7.2022.

¶41

Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the respondent-State filed an affidavit clarifying therein that as per letter dated 13.8.1997, posts filled up in excess of 10% quota as a result of one time relaxation against existing vacancies shall be adjusted against future vacancies of 10% promotion quota. Respondent have averred that the 20% quota is not over and above 10% quota.

¶42

¶43

That grievance of the petitioners is that after one time relaxations were granted by the Government in 1997 and 2005 i.e. 20% and 15% respectively, the respondents have not filed up the posts which fell to the promotional quota of Class IV employees, resulting in delayed promotion of the petitioners to the next higher post of Clerk.

¶44

From the record, two things are clear viz. two times relaxation was granted by the Government in Recruitment and Promotion Rules, in the matter of promotion to the post of Clerks from the cadre of Class IV employees, in excess of 10% quota i.e. 20% in 1997 and 15% in 2005 and such quota was not over and above the existing quota of 10%, meaning thereby when by way of one time relaxation, quota was raised to 20%, it would not be mean 30% quota and when it was raised to 15% it would also not mean total 25% quota, rather, the posts filled up in excess of 10% quota, as a result of one time relaxation were to be adjusted against future vacancies under 10% quota. Thus, it is clear that throughout the quota would remain 10%.

¶45

Now the question which comes to the fore is that whether the respondents have implemented the Government decision whereby one time relaxation was given in the matter. As per supplementary affidavit dated 21.7.2022, it is borne out that in the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 2.12.1997, after applying 20% quota, 9 posts of clerk were found to be vacant, which fell to the quota of Class IV employees and similarly 4 such posts were found vacant in Departmental Promotion Committee held on 7.1.2006.

¶46

¶47

If Annexure R/1 (available at page-59) is seen, it can be seen that nine persons from Class IV cadre have been recommended for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 2.12.1997, against balance 9 posts out of total 33 posts under 20% quota, towards implementation of the Government decision. Similarly, Annexure R-2/4 (page-35) shows that 13 Class IV persons, including 04 under enhanced quota of 15% (total vacancies 26, 22 already filled up, remaining 04 vacancies) have been promoted to the post of Clerk.

¶48

Thus, it is clear that the respondents have implemented the Government decisions taken on 13.8.1997 and 23.6.2005, whereby promotional quota to the post of Clerk from amongst the eligible Class IV incumbents was increased to 20% and 15% as a one time relaxation, as such, grievance of the petitioners does not survive.

¶49

Consequently, in view of above, present petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed alongwith all pending applications.

¶50

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

¶51

August 1, 2022 (Vikrant)

Udham Singh v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udham Singh v. State of Hp

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

Bablu Vs State of Hp and Others

Shahid Khan Vs State of Hp

Deepak Kumar Vs State of Hp

National Insurance Company Vs Sanjeev Kumar

Navneet Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Union of India Vs Roshan Lal and Ors.