Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Ajeet Kumar Sharma on 9 August, 2021
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Justice, Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1
IN HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 74 OF 2021
Between :-
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
THROUGH THE ADITIONAL
CHIEF SECRETARY (FORESTS)
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH.
2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS (HoFF) H.P. FOREST
DEPARTMENT, TALLAND, SHIMLA.
3. CHIEF EXCUTIVE OFFICER, H.P.
ZOOS AND CONSERVATION
BREEDING SOCIETY-CUM-ADDITIONAL
PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS (WILDLIFE), SHIMLA.
4. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
WILDLIFE DIVISION, HAMIRPUR.
5. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
UNA FOREST DIVISION, UNA, H.P.
6. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
H.P. ZOO CONSERVATION BREEDING
SOCIETY-CUM-DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
ZOO AND RESCUE DIVISION, SHIMLA, H.P.
...APPELLANTS
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:50:57 :::CIS
2
(BY MR. ASHOK SHARMA,
ADVOCATE GENERAL, WITH
MR. RANJAN SHARMA, MR. VIKAS
RATHORE, MS. RITTA GOSWAMI,
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERALS
AND MS. SEEMA SHARMA,
.
DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
AND
1. AJEET KUMAR SHARMA, S/O
SH. AMAR NATH SHARMA,
VILLAGE & P.O. DUGHLI,
TEHSIL BHORANJ, HAMIRPUR,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS DRIVER
WITH DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
WILDLIFE DIVISION HAMIRPUR,
MSC SASTAR, HAMIRPUR, H.P.
2. DINESH KUMAR, S/O LATE
SH. DAULAT RAM, VILLAGE & P.O.
PATTI, TEHSIL PALAMPUR,
DISTRICT KANGRA, PRESENTLY
WORKING AS DRIVER WITH
RANGE OFFICER GOPALPUR,
MSC WILDLIFE DIVISION HAMIRPUR,
H.P.
3. DINESH KUMAR, S/O SH. BHAGI RATH
SHARMA, VILLAGE JHALERA, P.O.
RAISARI, TEHSIL & DISTRICT
UNA, PRESENTLY WORKING
AS DRIVER MSC BOUL, WILDLIFE
DIVISION HAMIRPUR, H.P.
4. DAULAT RAM S/O SH. DILU RAM,
VILLAGE & P.O. GALEHA,
TEHSIL KOTKHAI, DISTRICT SHIMLA,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS DRIVER
IN DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
WILDLIFE DIVISION, SHIMLA, H.P.
...RESPONDENTS
____________________________________________________
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:50:57 :::CIS
3
This Appeal coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, delivered the following :
JUDGMENT
.
The appellant-State is aggrieved of the judgment
passed by leaned Single Judge directing it to give similar
treatment to the writ petitioners in respect of payment of
wages/scale as was given to the two other similarly situated
employees.
2. One of the grievances of the writ petitioners/present
respondents before the learned writ Court was that they alongwith
Lalit Kumar and Dinesh Kumar were discharging the duties of
drivers in respondent No. 6 Society on contract basis. Lalit Kumar
and Dinesh Kumar were being paid wages higher than was being
paid to the writ petitioners. Denial of higher wages to the writ
petitioners was asserted to be in violation of principles of equal
pay for equal work.
3. Before the learned Single Bench, the appellants
admitted that the two named drivers were given regular scale
vide office order dated 30.11.2018. The grant of regular scale to
the aforesaid two drivers was sought to be justified on the basis
of a decision taken in the meeting of governing body of
respondent No. 6 held on 04.08.2018 for granting regular scale
as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules to all the employees of
respondent No. 6 on completion of seven years of continuous
service. It was on this basis that the learned Single Judge held
that as a necessary corollary the writ petitioners on completion of
seven years of service were also entitled to the benefit of decision
.
taken by the governing body of respondent No. 6 on 04.08.2018.
Non-extension of same benefit to the petitioners was held to be
arbitrary.
This reasoning, in view of admitted facts, is in
accordance with law. Learned Additional Advocate General could
not point out even a single ground for assailing the judgment.
The direction of learned Single Judge to the appellants to pay the
same salary/scale to the writ petitioners on completion of seven
years of service as is being paid by them to the aforesaid two
drivers on the basis of decision taken by the governing body on
04.08.2018, does not call for any interference. The appeal is,
therefore, dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any.
Before parting, we may note a factual submission
made by learned Additional Advocate General during hearing of
the case to the effect that subsequent to the judgment passed by
learned Single Judge, the benefit of regular pay scale given to
Lalit Kumar and Dinesh Kumar has been withdrawn. It was further
submitted that the action of withdrawing the benefit has been
assailed by the two affected employees in separate writ petition,
wherein interim order has been passed staying the withdrawal of
pay scales. It goes without saying that since the benefit of regular
scale was granted to the present writ petitioners under the
impugned judgment on the anology of similar scale having been
.
given to Lalit Kumar and Dinesh Kumar, therefore, decisions qua
these two drivers shall also be applicable to the present writ
petitioners as well.
( Ravi Malimath )
Acting Chief Justice
9th August, 2021 (K)
( Jyotsna Rewal Dua )
Judge
