Piar Singh Verma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 17504 HP

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
                             AT SHIMLA

                                                               CWP No.8451 of 2023
                                               Decided on: 4th November, 2023




                                                                          .
    __________________________________________________________





    Piar Singh Verma
                                                     ....Petitioner
                               Versus





    State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
                                                ......Respondents

    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge



                                        to              No.
    1 Whether approved for reporting?



    For the Petitioner(s):                Ms. Aditi Rana, Advocate.


    For the Respondent(s):                Mr. B.C Verma, Additional Advocate
                                          General.



    Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral)

Notice. Mr. B.C Verma, learned Advocate Additional

General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of

respondents No. 1 & 2.

2. The instant petition, has been filed, seeking the

following reliefs:

(a) "to issue a writ of mandamus, appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof,

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

directing the respondents to extend the benefit of judgment of this Hon'ble Court rendered on 07.07.2022 in CWP No. 842/ 2017 titled as State of HP Vs. Sardari Lal with

.

all consequential benefits"

3. The case of the petitioner, as submitted by the

learned counsel, is that the petitioner was appointed as

a Trained Graduate Teacher. Thereafter, he was promoted as

Lecturer (School Cadre) and while working as Lecturer, the

petitioner was promoted to the post of Headmaster, from the

feeder category of Trained Graduate Teacher, in accordance with

the Recruitment & Promotion Rules of Head master(s).

It is further submitted that on promotion as Head

Master, respondents reduced the pay scale/ basic pay drawn by

the petitioner as Lecturer (School Cadre) resulting in civil

consequences and recovery also. She further submits that once

the petitioner was promoted as Headmaster in terms of his

eligibility as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules from

feeder category of Trained Graduate Teacher, though the

petitioner (at the time of promotion as Headmaster) was working

as Lecturer (the higher post than TGT with higher pay scale

and higher basic pay) then, on promotion as Headmaster the

petitioner was entitled to be fixed in pay, above the pay being

drawn by him as Lecturer (School Cadre), after giving the

benefit of Fundamental Rule 22 (I) (a) (i). In this background,

.

learned counsel submits that the denial of promotional

increment under Fundamental Rule 22 (I) (a) (i) as

Headmaster (w.e.f. 05.03.2019) over and above the pay drawn

as Lecturer (School Cadre), has resulted in financial loss to

the petitioner till day and the resultant recovery, if any, is

thus violation of the principles of natural justice as well as

the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of

State of Punjab versus Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334,

reiterated in the case of Thomas Daniel versus State of

Kerala, 2022 SCC On line 536.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the matter

in issue, already stands adjudicated by the Division Bench

of this Court, in CWP No. 842/2017 titled as State of

Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sardari Lal on 07.07.2022, (Annexure

P-1), whereby, the impugned orders of reduction in basic pay

and recovery were quashed and set aside.

5. Per contra, Learned State Counsel, Mr. B.C Verma,

at this stage submits that the case of the petitioner shall be

examined, in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in

the case of Sardari Lal (supra), in case, the petitioner raises a

grievance, by way of a representation to the competent

.

authority.

6. Faced with this situation, and as prayed for by

the learned vice counsel for the petitioner, this Court permits

the petitioner to make a representation to the Respondent No.

2- Director Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh within two

weeks from today; with further directions to the aforesaid

respondent authority to examine the case of the petitioner and

to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within six

weeks thereafter.

7. Needless to say, that this Court has not

adjudicated upon the merits of the instant case, and all

questions of facts and law, are left open.

8. As aforesaid, the instant writ-petition as well as

the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also

stand disposed of, accordingly.

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge November 04, 2023 (Sunil)