Dismissed

State of Hp and Anr. v. Neetu Sharma

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Aug 2022RP/273/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed the review petition filed by the State against an order directing appointment and regularization of a PTA teacher. The court held the review was a device to delay compliance and directed appointment within 24 days of disposal with interest for further delay.

What did the court decide?

State directed to ensure compliance with the judgment/order dated 13.4.2022 within twenty-four days; liable for interest on monetary benefits at 6% p.a. from date of accrual.

State of Hp and Anr. Vs Neetu Sharma — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

ON THE 5^th DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

¶5

REVIEW PETITON No. 273 OF 2022

¶6

Between:-

¶7

1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (EDUCATION), GOVT. OF H.P., SHIMLA171002.

¶8

2. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVT. OF H.P., SHIMLA. …PETITIONERS

¶9

(BY SH. RAJU RAM RAHI, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL.)

¶10

AND

¶11

NEETU SHARMA W/O SH. NAVEEN SHARMA, R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE MATLAHAR, TEHSIL JAWALI, DISTT. KANGRA, H.P. …RESPONDENT ERSTWHILE PARENTS TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, GOVT. SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, AMNI, TEHSIL JAWALI, DISTT. KANGRA, THROUGH ITS …PERFORMA PRESIDENT SH. KARNAIL SINGH. RESPONDENT.

¶12

(NONE.)

¶13

Whether approved for reporting?

¶14

This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the following:

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Present Review Petition has been preferred on the grounds that judgment/order passed by this Court is against the provisions of Government Rules/Instructions as there was no guidelines in Notifications dated 19.4.2008 and 27.5.2008 to engage the complainant and, therefore, respondent cannot offer appointment to the petitioner because Government had stopped engagement on PTA basis vide latter dated 3.1.2008 and further that complaint against selected candidate

¶17

¶18

Review Petition No. 273 of 2022

¶19

was made in the year 2007 and during pendency of complaint, Government stopped the engagement on PTA basis. Lastly that PTA engagement is made by concerned PTA for particular school and there is no provision to post the PTA appointee of one school to another school, therefore, petitioner cannot be adjusted in any other school as regular incumbent is working against the post of Lecturer Chemistry in GSSS Amni, District Kangra w.e.f. 7.12.2021.

¶20

Case in hand involves the selection process initiated in the year 2007, prior to 3.1.2008 and, therefore, Government Instructions dated 3.1.2008 are not applicable in present case as already held by this Court in para 14 of judgment/order and, therefore, under the garb of communications dated 3.1.2008, 19.4.2008 and 27.5.2008, petitioner cannot be denied appointment and further that appointment was delayed because of omission and commission on the part of respondents or other Government functionaries, therefore, for delay, petitioner cannot be made to suffer and is not to be debarred from appointment as already held in the order passed by this court.

¶21

Lastly, it is undisputed fact that all PTA appointees after serving a particular length of service have been converted into contract employees and thereafter some of them have been regularized on completion of requisite length of service. As it has already been directed by this Court, in present case, to confer all consequential benefits to the petitioner after treating her in service since 20.9.2007, therefore, at present her appointment is to be made as a contract/regular employee by considering her length of service from aforesaid date of appointment. Hence plea of respondents that she cannot be appointed in any other

¶22

¶23

Review Petition No. 273 of 2022

¶24

school of respondents, is misconceived. In any case, in case of difficulty, in order to comply with the order of the Court, the person posted in GSSS Amni can also be shifted to any other place being a regular employee because there is no fault on the part of the petitioner in delaying her appointment or joining.

¶25

In the aforesaid circumstances, the issues raised in the Review Petition are baseless and are not sustainable, rather this petition appears to be a device to avoid or delay implementation of judgment/order passed by this Court.

¶26

There is no error apparent on the face of record, warranting review. Therefore, with the aforesaid observations, present Review Petition is dismissed with direction to State/Department to ensure compliance of judgment/order on or before 15^th September, 2022, failing which State/Department, in addition, shall also be liable to pay interest on the monetary benefits payable to the petitioner, in terms of paras 15 and 16 of the judgment/order dated13.4.2022 @ 6% per annum from the date of accrual till realization thereof.

¶27

Pending applications, also stands disposed of.

¶28

(Vivek Singh Thakur), 5^th August, 2022 Judge. (Keshav)

State of Hp and Anr. v. Neetu Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Hp and Anr. v. Neetu Sharma

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

Gulshan Kumar Vs State of Hp

Jai Singh Vs Kalawati

Sunil Dutt Vs State of Hp

Guddi Devi and Another Vs State of Hp and Others

Bala Ram Vs State of Hp

Mohnish Mohan Vs State of Hp