Himachal Pradesh High Court
Between:-R vs Biri Singh on 21 October, 2021
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq, Sabina
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 21st DAY OF OCTOBER 2021
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.402 of 2012
Between:-r
SUDHIR GOEL,
S/O SH BIHARI LAL GOEL,
R/O CHAHAL COTTAGE, TOTU,
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SHIMLA
.....APPELLANT.
(BY SH. SUNIL MOHAN GOEL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. BIRI SINGH
S/O SH PURAN CHAND
R/O VILLAGE ATHRAH P.O. BIHUN
TEHSIL JOGINDERNAGAR DISTRICT MANDI
2. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR, SHIMLA 171009.
3. SH. SUBHASH CHAND SUPDT GRADE II,
O/O PRESIDENT DCDRF UNA,
DISTRICT UNA (ADDRESS AS GIVEN
IN MEMO OF THE PETITION).
4. SECRETARY (FOOD & SUPPLIES),
H.P. GOVERNMENT SHIMLA-171002.
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:12:44 :::CIS
2
.....RESPONDENTS
(SH. SANJEEV BHUSHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE
WITH MR.RAJESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE, FOR R-1.
SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL,
.
WITH MS.RITTA GOSWAMI, ADDITIONAL
ADVOCATE GENERAL, FOR R-4)
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7394 of 2012
Between:-
SUDHIR GOEL,
S/O SH BIHARI LAL GOEL,
R/O CHAHAL COTTAGE, TOTU,
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SHIMLA
.....PETITIONER.
(BY SH. SUNIL MOHAN GOEL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (FCS & CA)
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH, SHIMLA.
2. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR, SHIMLA 171009
3. BIRI SINGH
S/O SH PURAN CHAND
R/O VILLAGE ATHRAH P.O. BIHUN
TEHSIL JOGINDERNAGAR DISTRICT MANDI
.....RESPONDENTS
(SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL,
WITH MS.RITTA GOSWAMI, ADDITIONAL
ADVOCATE GENERAL, FOR R-1
SH. SANJEEV BHUSHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:12:44 :::CIS
3
WITH MR.RAJESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE, FOR R-3)
________________________________________________
These matters coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble
.
Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq, delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
CMP(M) No.1412 of 2012
This appeal is barred by limitation having delay of 14
days. For the stated reasons, the delay is condoned. Application
stands disposed of.
CMP No.1200 of 2012
This application is filed seeking leave of the Court to file
appeal on the premise that the implementation of the judgment has
affected the appellant and would have bearing on is career. The
application is allowed and leave to file appeal is granted.
LPA No.402 of 2012 and CWP No.7394 of 2012
Aforementioned appeal seeks to challenge the
judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in CWP(T) No.7345 of
2008 filed by respondent-Biri Singh. The respondent-writ petitioner
Biri Singh in the aforesaid writ petition challenged the order dated
10.09.1993 of absorption of respondent No.3-Subhash Chand as
Senior Scale Stenographer in the State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission retrospectively w.e.f. 10.09.1993 and also
prayed for direction to the respondents to consider his case for
promotion on ad hoc basis as Superintendent Grade-II. Office order
.
dated 07.07.2001 was also under challenge in the writ petition
whereby Subhash Chand was promoted to the post of
Superintendent Grade-II on ad hoc basis.
The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition,
quashed the promotion order dated 07.07.2001 of respondent No.-3
Subhash Chand and directed respondents No.1 and 2 to consider
the case of the writ petitioner-Biri Singh for promotion to the post of
Superintendent Grade-II on ad hoc basis from due date with all
consequential benefits within a period of eight weeks. However, in
order to balance the equities, since respondent No.3 has already
retired from service, no recoveries shall be effected from the
pensionary/retiral benefits of respondent No.3- Subhash Chand.
Apart from filing the appeal, appellant-Sudhir Goel has
also filed the CWP No.7394 of 2012 with a prayer for direction to the
respondents not to demote him from the post of Reader to which
post he was promoted on 18.07.2012 vide Annexure P-3 and not to
grant seniority to respondent No.3-Biri Singh (writ petitioner in
CWP(T) No.7345 of 2008) as Superintendent Grade-II over and
above the petitioner. This Court, while issuing notice in the writ
petition on 04.09.2012, passed the following order:
"Notice to respondent No.3. In case the petitioner is
.
to be demoted from the post of Reader, the order in
that regard shall be implemented only after obtaining
permission from the Court. Reply within six weeks.
Post alongwith LPA No.402 of 2012 on 30.10.2012
Authenticated copy."
Mr.Sunil Mohan Goel, learned counsel for the appellant
and the writ petitioner, submits that in course of time the appellant-
Sudhir Goel has retired from service on 31 st March, 2017 and that
by virtue of aforementioned interim order dated 04.09.2012, he
continued to serve on the post of Reader and all retiral/pensionary
benefits have accordingly been paid to him. He has argued that the
judgment dated 10.07.20212, passed in the writ petition filed by Biri
Singh, directing the respondents not to effect any recoveries from
the pensionary/retiral benefits of respondent No.3-Subhash Chand
in that case should also be passed in favour of the
petitioner/appellant in the present matters.
Mr.Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for Biri Singh, the original writ petitioner and respondent
No.3 in the present writ petition also submits that the judgment dated
10.07.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court was
fully implemented and the petitioner was granted all the benefits
which were liable to be granted to him, pursuant to the aforesaid
.
judgment. His Client has also retired from service. He further
submits that since appellant-Sudhir Goel and respondent No.3-Biri
Singh have also retired from service, the directions, which were
issued in the writ petition filed by Biri Singh that no recovery should
be effected from the pensionary/retiral benefits of Subhash Chand,
who was respondent No.3 in that writ petition, should also be passed
in the present matters.
These matters are pending before this Court for the last
nine years. It is not in dispute that the judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge in favour of Biri Singh was not assailed by the
State Government or by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission and consequently he has received all the benefits. As
far as Sudhir Goel is concerned he has not only filed the appeal,
apprehending adverse effect from the implementation of the
aforementioned judgment, but, also filed a separate writ petition in
which this Court vide order dated 04.09.2012, directed that in case
the petitioner is demoted from the post of Reader, the order in that
regard shall be implemented only after obtaining permission from the
Court. It is not disputed that no such application was ever filed by
the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, seeking any
such permission. Resultantly, Sudhir Goel continued to serve on the
.
post of Reader till his retirement from service on 31.03.2017.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are
inclined to grant prayer made by the learned counsel for the
appellant-Sudhir Goel a xnd respondent No.3-Biri Singh and direct
that whatever pensionary/retiral benefits have been granted to them
shall not be withdrawn and no recovery with regard to the same shall
be effected from any one of them.
Accordingly, the appeal as well as the writ petition are
disposed of.
( Mohammad Rafiq )
Chief Justice
( Sabina )
October 21, 2021 Judge
(vt)
