Rustam Singh vs State Of H.P. & Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 3003 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA




                                                                           .
                                                      CWPOA No.1585 of 2019





                                                      Decided on: 27.03.2023

    Rustam Singh                                                       ....Petitioner.





                      Versus
    State of H.P. & another                                            .... Respondents.

    Coram





    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

    Whether approved for reporting?1                   Yes
    For the petitioner               :       Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate,
                          r                  with Ms. Anita, Advocate.

    For the Respondents               :      M/s Jitender Sharma, Tejasvi
                                             Sharma, Baldev Negi, Pushpender
                                             Jaswal,    Additional    Advocate
                                             Generals,


    Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for

the following reliefs­

"(i) That the order dated 14.5.2009 Annexure P­3 may please be directed to be implemented in its letter and

spirit. The entire service benefits including seniority, promotion be granted to the petitioner including the salary for the period w.e.f. 1.7.1999 to 1.7.2000.

(ii) That the impugned orders dated 2.6.2010 Annexure P­4 and dated 3.7.2010 Annexure P­5 may please be directed to be modified and to give the entire service

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

and consequential benefits including seniority, promotion and salary as the petitioner is deemed to be

.

in service w.e.f. 1.7.1999.

(iii) Costs of the petition may please be awarded in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents."

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the

present petition are that after completion of B.Sc., the petitioner

applied for the post of Agriculture Extension Officer. He appeared

in an interview for the said post under the category of Other

Backward Class (hereinafter to be referred as 'OBC') (General), on

31.05.1999. Despite the fact that the petitioner was eligible for

being considered for appointment against the post in issue, yet he

was not given appointment on the ground that he has crossed the

prescribed age limit for recruitment to the government job. This

was done in terms of communication (Annexure P­1), dated

08.12.1999. As per the petitioner, thereafter, he again appeared in

interview for appointment against the post of Agriculture Extension

Officer under OBC (General) Category on 15/16.05.2000. As he

was eligible for appointment against the post in issue, this time he

was appointed as Agriculture Extension Officer vide letter dated

14.06.2000 and he joined his duties w.e.f. 01.07.2000.

3. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the factum of his

being arbitrarily denied for appointment against the post in issue

in the year 1999,made representation to the respondents and vide

order dated 14.05.2009 (Annexure P­3), the grievance of the

.

petitioner was found to be genuine by the Department and in

terms of this order, the authority concerned ordered that

appointment of the petitioner as Agriculture Extension Officer

against OBC (General) Category on batch­wise basis shall be

deemed w.e.f. 01.07.1999, above his junior in OBC Category, so as

to confer upon him seniority and other benefits. This was followed

by issuance of Office Order dated 07.06.2010 (Annexure P­4), in

terms whereof, though seniority was granted to the petitioner

against the post of Agriculture Extension Officer w.e.f. 01.07.1999,

but the financial benefits were given to him notionally w.e.f.

01.07.1999 to 30.06.2000.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner

has submitted that as denial of job to the petitioner in the year

1999 was on erroneous act of the respondents, therefore, the

petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the acts of omission of the

respondents and the grievance of the petitioner is very limited at

this stage and all that he is asking for is that he should be given

actual monetary benefits w.e.f. 01.07.1999 upto 30.06.2000.

5. The petition is opposed by the State, inter alia, on the

ground that the petitioner has been granted by the Department

whatever was due to him and as he actually had not performed his

duties w.e.f. 01.07.1999 upto 30.06.2000, therefore, there is no

.

infirmity in granting notional benefits him w.e.f. 01.07.1999.

Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that as the

petitioner has been duly compensated, both financially as well as

seniority wise, therefore, there is no merit in the present petition

and the same be dismissed.

6.

I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner

as also learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone

through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith.

7. As already mentioned hereinabove, the grievance of the

petitioner is in a very narrow compass. The petitioner is seeking

salary w.e.f. 01.07.1999 upto 30.06.2000, against the post of

Agriculture Extension Officer. It is not in dispute that despite being

selected against the post of Agriculture Extension Officer on

batch­wise basis against a post reserved for OBC (General)

Category, the petitioner was not offered appointment on the ground

that he had become overage. However, subsequently, the

Department itself admitted in terms of order dated 14.05.2009 that

the petitioner was wrongfully denied appointment against the post

of Agriculture Extension Officer on batch­wise basis w.e.f.

01.07.1999.

8. Not only this, in terms of order dated 14.05.2009, the

petitioner has been ordered to be in service as an Agriculture

.

Extension Officer w.e.f. 01.07.1999 and it has also been mentioned

in this order that the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service

w.e.f. 01.07.1999 for the purpose of seniority and other benefits.

There is no rider in order dated 14.05.2009 that monetary benefits

that were now accruable to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.07.1999 were to

9.

r to be on notional basis only as upto the date he actually joined as an

Agriculture Extension Officer.

That being the case, denial of actual salary to the

petitioner w.e.f. 01.07.1999 upto 30.06.2000 in terms of Annexure

P­4 is not sustainable in the eyes of laws and the same is held to

be bad.

10. The petitioner obviously cannot be made to suffer for

the acts of omission of the Department and in these

circumstances, as it is the own admission of the Department that

the petitioner was wrongfully denied service w.e.f. 01.07.1999, this

Court is of the considered view that interest of justice will be

served in case respondent­State pays to the petitioner the actual

salary w.e.f. 01.07.1999 upto 30.06.2000, of the post of

Agriculture Extension Officer, as it was at the relevant time.

Ordered accordingly.

11. The petition stands disposed of in above terms. It is

made clear that in case this order is complied with within a period

.

of two months from today, then the salary amount shall not entail

any interest. But, if the order is not complied with within a period

of two months from today, then 6% interest will accrue on the

amount that is payable to the petitioner as from the date of filing of

the writ petition.

12.

disposed of.

r to Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stands

(Ajay Mohan Goel)

Judge March 27, 2023 (Rishi)