Smt. Rama Sharma Wife Of Sh vs State Of H.P And
2021 Latest Caselaw 5320 HP

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA




                                                           .
                 ON THE 22nd DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021





                         BEFORE
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR





      CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION) No. 3285 of 2019
    Between:-

    1. SMT. RAMA SHARMA WIFE OF SH.





    BHAWANI SHARMA, SHARMA NIWAS,
    HAPPY VALLEY ROAD DEONGHAT, PO
    SAPROON, SOLAN, DISTRICT SOLAN,
    H.P

    2. SMT. RAMA BANTA WIFE OF SH. A.K

    BANTA, BANTA SUMMER HOUSE, KOI,
    P.O NAUNI, SOLAN, H.P.

    3. ABDUL MAZID SON OF SH. FIROZE
    DIN, VILLAGE AMLEHAR, P.O MAJHIAR,


    TEHSIL NADAUN, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR,
    H.P.

    4. MRS. JYOTI RANA WIFE OF SH. R.S




    RANA, PARKASH VILLA, NAVBAHAR,
    SHIMLA-171002.





    5. MRS. PAWAN LATA SHARMA WIFE
    OF SH. ANIL SHARMA, VILLAGE





    RABON,     VASHISHT    BHAWAN,
    SAPROON, SOLAN, H.P.

                                              ........ PETITIONERS.
    ( BY MR. DILIP SHARMA, SR. ADVOCATE
     WITH MANISH SHARMA, ADVOCATE. )

    AND

    1. DR. YASHWANT SINGH PARMAR
    UNIVERSITY OF HORTICULTURE &
    FORESTRY,      NAUNI,  SOLAN,
    DISTRICT SOLAN, H.P. THROUGH
    ITS REGISTRAR.




                                          ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:18:45 :::CIS
                                             2



    2. MEHAR     SINGH,    LIBRARY
    ASSITANT, O/O THE LIBRARIAN, DR.




                                                                       .
    YASHWANT      SINGH     PARMAR





    UNIVERSITY OF HORTICULTURE &
    FORESTRY,      NAUNI,    SOLAN,
    DISTRICT SOLAN, H.P.





                                                          .....RESPONDENTS
    (MR. AVINSH JARYAL, ADVOCATE, FOR
    RESPONDENT NO.1.
    MR. LOVNEESH KANWAR, ADVOCATE FOR




    RESPONDENT NO.2)

    Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

     This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed the following:-

                                    ORDER

Petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by

counting of past service of respondent No.2 rendered by him in

Army for granting him seniority to the post of Library Assistant by

respondent No.1 vide order dated 20.8.2009 leading to placement of

petitioner below respondent No.2.

2. Law on issue involved in the present case is no longer res

integra and has been settled in a pronouncement of this High Court

in a case titled Shri V.K Behal and others versus State of H.P and

others reported in Latest H.L.J 2009(HP) 402, which has been

affirmed by the Supreme Court in case titled R.K Barwal and others

versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others reported in (2017) 16

SCC 803.

3. It is also noticeable that consequent to the aforesaid

.

pronouncements, Government of Himachal Pradesh has also issued

instructions dated 25.2.2019 through Additional Chief Secretary to

the Government of Himachal Pradesh to all Departments, Boards,

Corporations with following advice in para 5 of these instructions to

take action accordingly.

"(i) No change is required in the seniority of

those ex-servicemen who have been given the

benefit of seniority under the extant rules. Therefore, the seniority positions of Ex- servicemen before the date of judgment of High

Court i.e 29.12.2008 may be maintained.

(ii) In the cases pending for decision

before and after 29.12.2008, the benefit of counting the past service rendered in the armed

forces towards seniority in first civil employment

against reserved vacancy in the case of Ex- servicemen who have not joined the Armed forces during the period of emergency may not be given. However, the benefit of counting past service rendered in the armed forces towards pay fixation may be given.

(iii) In view of the points (i) and (ii) above, besides Prosecution Department, if positions of Ex-Servicemen have been altered in the seniority

lists in accordance with the instructions dated

.

30.01.2018, the status quo ante may be restored."

4. In the present case seniority has been granted to

respondent No.2 on 20.8.2009 i.e after 29.12.2008. Therefore the

present case is governed by the instructions contained in paragraph

5 (ii) of instructions dated 25.2.2019 reproduced supra and past

service rendered by respondent No.2 in armed forces is only to be

counted for pay fixation but not for granting seniority.

5. In view of the settled position of law and above discussion,

order dated 20.8.2009 (Annexure P-14) is quashed and set aside

and respondent-University is directed to extend all consequential

benefits to the petitioner within four weeks from today.

Petition stands disposed of alongwith pending applications.

    22nd November, 2021                           (Vivek Singh Thakur),





       (priti)                                         Judge.