CIVIL APPEAL 9956 of 2008 on 1 December 1982

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

CWP(T) No.: 9956 of 2008.

Decided on: 21.12.2010.

__________________________________________________________

Suram Singh.

… Petitioner.

Versus

Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and another. … Respondents.

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J.

Whether approved for reporting?[1] No.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate.

Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral).:

Petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar in the respondent-Corporation on 1[st] February, 1977. He was regularized w.e.f. 1.12.1982 vide letter dated 23.5.1984 (Annexure A-1). 2. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that his client has not been given the benefit of approved military service and his client has also not been considered for promotion to the post of Daftri. According to him, his client is entitled to leave encashment to the extent of 300 days. 3. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent- Corporation has vehemently argued that since the petitioner was 1Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.

appointed against general category post, he could not be given the benefits of pay fixation and seniority. He has also contended that the petitioner was only entitled to 168 days’ earned leave and since he had availed earned leave for 76 days, he has been paid leave encashment for 92 days. He has further contended that the petitioner has also been paid the increment with effect from 26.3.2003 and his revised pension papers have been sent to the concerned authority.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully.

5. Petitioner has not placed on record any evidence to prove that he was appointed against the post reserved for ex-serviceman. He was appointed against general category post. In view of this, he could not be given the benefit of approved military service towards pay fixation and seniority. Petitioner though has been appointed on 1[st] February, 1977, he has made the first representation for the redressal of his grievance on 20.3.1989 which was rejected by the competent authority on 31.5.1989. Thereafter he again made a representation on 15.10.1996 which was also rejected on 14.1.1997. The present petition has been filed only in the year 2003, that too, after the petitioner has retired from the service of respondent-Corporation. The minimum educational qualification prescribed for the post of Daftri as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1996 was 5[th] standard. The petitioner did not possess the essential educational qualification and for this reason alone, his case could not be considered for promotion. The petitioner had 168 days’ earned leave to his credit as on 31.3.2003. He has availed earned leave for 76 days from 9.1.2003 to 25.3.2003. The Corporation had paid him leave encashment for balance 92 days on his retirement. Petitioner has not filed any rejoinder or placed any material on record to rebut the averments contained in the reply so far as his entitlement for leave encashment is concerned. Petitioner is entitled, as per the reply for one increment from 1[st] March, 2003. However, since the petitioner was not on duty upto 25.3.2003, his increment was deferred to 26.3.2003. His revised pension papers have already been sent to the higher authorities for approval as per contents of the reply and he was entitled for ` 2823/- per month as pension. He is also entitled to gratuity amounting to ` 95,836/- instead of ` 92,872/- after counting one increment.

per month as pension. He is also entitled to gratuity amounting to

6. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. However, in the interest of justice, respondents are directed to revise the pension of the petitioner and pay him the amount due as undertaken in the reply, if not already paid, within a period of two months after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.

December 21, 2010. (sck).

(Rajiv Sharma), Judge.