The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled against the State Government, dismissing its appeal and imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000 for continuing litigation over a meagre amount of Rs. 2,500.
The Court criticized the government for harassing citizens through unnecessary legal battles and emphasized the need for equal treatment of employees. Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Ajay Mohan expressed their distress over the State's persistence in litigating small-value matters that cause unnecessary hardship to citizens.
Brief Facts:
The case revolved around a retired Tehsildar who received a one-year extension of service from June 1, 2013, to May 31, 2014. However, the extension notification stated that he would not be entitled to any additional financial benefits except his last drawn pay on May 31, 2013.
The Tehsildar sought a regular increment from July 2013 and approached the competent authority for its release. When his request was denied, he filed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to secure the regular increment as per government instructions. The single judge allowed his plea, citing Clause 22.2, Chapter 22 of the Handbook on Personnel Matters, which stated that employees with an extension of service are eligible for increments.
Observations by the Court:
The Bench noted that the executive instructions contained in Clause 22.2, Chapter 22 of the Handbook on Personnel Matters were binding on the State, and the increment could not be denied to the Respondent.
The Court criticized the State for its discriminatory treatment, granting the same benefits to other employees while denying them to the Respondent. It emphasized that the State, as a model employer, should not differentiate among its employees in such a manner. Additionally, the High Court highlighted the significant power imbalance between the Respondent and the State, emphasizing that the former, as a mere employee, had limited bargaining power and had to accept the extension's terms despite their potential unreasonableness or unfairness.
Considering the unequal bargaining power and the Respondent's lack of choice, the Court dismissed the State's appeal, noting that the Respondent had promptly made representations for the increment and had not acquiesced to the denial of benefits.
The decision of the Court:
Furthermore, the Bench expressed its disappointment with the State's decision to litigate a matter involving such a minimal amount. It held that the increment's value of Rs. 2,500 did not warrant the Government's pursuit of the case and imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 as a deterrent against frivolous litigation.
Case Name: State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Rajinder Fishta
Coram: Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Hon’ble Justice Ajay Mohan
Case No.: LPA No. 190 of 2022
Advocates of the Appellant: Advs. Mr. Anup Rattan, Mr. Navlesh Verma, Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Mr. Gautam Sood & Mr. Arsh Rattan
Advocates of the Respondent: Advs. Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
