Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rajinder Kumar vs State Of Hp & Otjhers Vide Office ... on 4 January, 2022
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ON THE 4th DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
.
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, JUDGE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, JUDGE
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2048 OF 2021
Between
RAJINDER KUMAR S/O SH.OM PARKASH,
CHAUDHARY NIWAS, CIRCULAR ROAD,
SOLAN, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL
PRADESH 173 212.
....PETITIONER
(BY MR. PRANEET GUPTA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
THROUGH ITS FINANCIAL
COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY (PW)
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.
2. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF HPP WD,
NIRMAN BHAWAN, SHIMLA, HIMACHAL
PRADESH, SHIMLA 171 002.
3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, 3RD
CIRCLE, HP PWD (B&R), SOLAN,
DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SOLAN
DIVISION, HP PWD SOLAN, H.P.
5. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E)
HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
....RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:33:07 :::CIS
2
(BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE
GENERAL WITH MR. VINOD THAKUR,
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)
.
(BY SH. BAL RAM SHARMA, ASGI)
_________________________________________________
This civil writ petition coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble
Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, delivered the following:
ORDER
It is rather unfortunate that despite elapsing of about 02
years, when the last instruction was imparted, vide letter dated 16.11.2021,
nothing seems to be heard at the respondents' side. In the instructions
dated 18.11.2019, the respondents after re-examining the matter in its
entirety, had imparted the following instructions, relevant portion whereof
reads as under:
"In pursuance to the direction issued vide Engineer-in-Chief, HP PWD, Shimla office
in terms of Speaking Orders issued in OA No. 4990/2018 titled as Sh. Rajinder Kumar
Vs. State of HP & otjhers vide office order No. PWE-133 (Court Case)ES-III-10819-
23 dated 16.11.2019 further conveyed to this office by Superintending Engineer 3 rd
Circle, HP PWD; Solan vide his office endorsement No. 9848 dated 18.11.2019, the
recovered amount to the tune of Rs. 54,456/- (Rupees Fifty Four Thousand Four
Hundred and Fifty Six) only on account of anomaly in the pay fixationof Rajinder
Kumar, Technician Grade-I (Work Inspector), Retired from Government Duty
on31.08.2007 after attaining the age of superannuation due to unauthorized grant of
ACP's despite granting benefit of three tier pay scale in ratio of 20:30:50 is hereby
ordered to be refunded with immediate effect."
2. Thereafter, the matter was listed number of times before this
Court, but to no avail and the Superintending Engineer, 3 rd Circle, HP PWD
(B&R) Solan was summoned to the Court. Even today, the State has
virtually reiterating the instructions, which were imparted to this Court
about 2 years back by reiterating that the matter had been sent to the
various departments and respondents are not taking steps to implement the
judgment. This is clearly evident from instructions dated 23.12.2021,
relevant portion of which reads as under:
.
"The above case was listed for hearing before the Hon'ble High Court of HP on
25.11.2021 and now the case is again listed for hearing on 24.12.2021. In this regard
it is submitted that the Finance Department has conveyed its decision on file to the
Administrative Department i.e. Secretary (PW) to the Govt. of HP as the same below
placed for issuing further instruction to the Head of Department.
In view of above submission needful will be done immediately in terms of the
direction received from the Administrative Department and the necessary compliance
will be submitted before the Hon'ble High Court accordingly."
3. We have repeatedly observed that officers of the State are
shirking from taking decisions, which is not healthy practice and needs to
be deprecated and discouraged at every level. Even now in this case, this
Court had issued notice on July, 2021 and thereafter as many as 10
hearings are taken place, but again despite this the grievance of the
petitioner has not yet been redressed and there is only a status quo ante as
existed in the year 2019. The petitioner has now retired and is 62 years of
age and respondents need to realize that sooner or latter they would also be
retiring. We leave it at the wisdom of the officers of the respondents-State,
as to how they feel, if they are treated in the similar fashion as they are
currently treating the petitioner, but for the time being we direct the
respondents to fix the pension of the petitioner as advised by the Finance
and other Departments as expeditiously as possible and not later than 10
days from today.
4. In view of above, the petition is disposed of, so also pending
miscellaneous applications, if any.
5. For compliance, to come up on 14.1.2022 before the Hon'ble
Vacation Judge.
.
6. Authenticated copy of this order be supplied to the parties.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Judge
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
Judge
4th January, 2022.
(Guleria)
