Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/11519/2011 on 29 December 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA.
CWP No. 11519 of 2011
Decided on: 29.12.2011
Sh. Jai Ram Sharma, S/o Sh. Bija Ram, R/o Sharair, P.O.
Kufri, Tehsil Kandaghat, Distt. Solan, H.P.
....Petitioner
Versus
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The Secretary (I& PH) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla.
2. The Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary Finance to the Government of H.P., Shimla-2.
3. Engineer-in-Chief, I& PH, U.S. Club, Shimla-1.
....Respondents
Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General, Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Ramesh
Thakur,
Assistant Advocate General.
Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral)
The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:
“(i) That the respondents be directed to grant the increment to the petitioners on the post of Draughtman from the date when they were actually promoted as Dragutsman and not from the date of completion of 12 years of service, with all consequential benefits like arrears etc.”
2. According to the petitioner, the issue has been decided by the Tribunal and this Court, as can be seen from Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-6, respectively. It is submitted that these orders have been implemented. The learned Additional Advocate General points out that in the present case, the petitioner has approached this Court after 20 years, though he is similarly situated like other petitioners covered by the orders, referred to above. If that be so, when the judgment is implemented, the benefits hither to can be made notional and except to that extent, the principle should be applied uniformly, since it is a question of protection of pay. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that petitioner may file an appropriate representation before the third respondent/competent authority, in which case, the same shall be considered in the light of the observations made above. The needful shall be done within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition by the petitioner before the third respondent/competent authority.
3. The petition stands disposed of, as above, so also the pending application(s), if any.
(Justice Kurian Joseph),
Chief Justice.
December 29, 2011 (Justice Dev Dasrshan Sud), ( ms/hl) Judge.