Dismissed

Bhikham Singh v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC15 May 2024CWPOA/5976/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought salary allowance and interest for periods 2009-2015 and 2015-2018, claiming regular employee status. Court dismissed petition noting petitioner was on contract due to educational qualification, later regularized as Panchayat Sahayak but not eligible for pension due to superannuation on regularization date.

What did the court decide?

None granted; petition dismissed along with pending applications.

Bhikham Singh Vs State of Hp — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

CWPOA No. 5976 of 2020

¶3

Decided on: 15^th May, 2024 Bhikham Singh .......Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of H.P and others. ...Respondents

¶6

Coram

¶7

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.

¶8

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶10

For the petitioner: Mr. Bonit Prakash, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G. with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Addl. A.G and Ms. Sharmila Patial, Addl. A.G.

¶11

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)

¶12

The instant petition has been filed for the grant of

¶13

following relief:-

¶14

“a) That the respondents may kindly be directed to give the salary allowance to the applicant w.e.f. the year 20092015 as a contract basis employee and w.e.f. from the year 2015 to 31.05.2018 along-with interest as a regular employee scale in the interest of justice and fair play.”

¶15

When the case came up for consideration before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 29.11.2023, the following orders came to be passed:-

¶16

1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶17

¶18

“Though 15 pages reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents, but it does not deal with contentions and claims of the petitioner, particularly, with respect to prayer made in the Original Application.

¶19

In view of above, as prayed by learned Additional Advocate General, respondents are permitted and directed to file fresh/supplementary reply, dealing with contentions and claims of petitioner specifically. Said reply be filed within two weeks. List for consideration after three weeks.”

¶20

In compliance to the aforesaid order, supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 which goes to indicate that the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Sahayak on part time basis by the concerned Gram Panchayat on 27.12.1999. Thereafter, his services were converted into whole-time w.e.f. 31^st July, 2007.

¶21

On 01.10.2009 (Annexure R-1), instructions were issued to all the Block Development Officers-cum-Executive Officers, Panchayat Samiti, Himachal Pradesh regarding the redesignation of Panchayat Sahayak as Panchayat Secretary on contract basis, after completion of eight years of satisfactory service as on 31.03.2008. The instructions specifically prescribe the minimum educational qualification of 10^th with second division or 10+2. However, the petitioner had secured only 439 out of 900 marks and placed in 3^rd division, therefore,

¶22

¶23

the petitioner could not be re-designated as Panchayat Secretary on contract basis.

¶24

However, it appears that later on vide order dated 26.04.2018, instructions were again issued to the all the Chief Executive Officers, Zila Parishad-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh that all the Panchayat Sahayaks, appointed before coming into force the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Appointment and Conditions of Service of Panchayat Sahayaks) Rules, 2008, who had possessed the qualification of matric with 3^rd division and were left for regularization as Panchayat Sahayak (contract) due to their 3^rd division were to be given relaxation and were entitled for regularization.

¶25

In compliance to the aforesaid instructions, the services of the petitioner were regularized vide order dated 31.05.2018 along-with all other contractual re-designated Panchayat Sachivs on the recommendations of the Screening Committee of Zila Parishad, Kangra, but the petitioner did not submit his joining as regular Panchayat Secretary as he had already superannuated from service on the very same day i.e. 31.05.2018, after attaining the age of 58 years, as such, he is not entitled for the pensionary benefits.

¶26

¶27

As regards the salary allowances

¶28

admissible/payable to the petitioner w.e.f. the year 2009-2015 and further w.e.f. the year 2015 to 31.05.2018, the same have already been paid to the petitioner from time to time as per salary statement appended by the respondents with their reply as Annexure R-IV.

¶29

Obviously, in such circumstances, the instant petition sans merit and is dismissed accordingly, along-with pending applications, if any.

¶30

( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ) Judge

¶31

May 15, 2024 ( Sushil Kukreja ) (naveen) Judge

Bhikham Singh v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhikham 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

State of Hp and Another Vs H.P Mid Day Meal Workers Union and Another

Chinni Ram Vs State of Hp

Sparsh Vs State of Hp

Deep Raj Vs Hrtc and Anr.

Tilak Raj Vs Hrtc and Others

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of Hp