Decided On: 04.11.2023 vs State Of H.P. & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 17511 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 8471 of 2023 Decided on: 04.11.2023 Sita Ram & Ors ........Petitioners

.

Versus

State of H.P. & Ors.

.......Respondents

Coram HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN SHARMA, JUDGE

WHETHER APPROVED FOR REPORTING?

For the petitioner : Mr. Rocky, Advocate, vice Mr.

Devender K. Sharma, Advocates.

    For the respondents     : Mr.  B.C.   Verma,                   Additional
                 r            Advocate General.

    Ranjan Sharma, (Oral)

The petitioner(s), have come up before this

Court, seeking following relief(s):-

"i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may very kindly be issued and

impugned rejection order 27.12.2010 dated (Annexure P-4) may be quashed

and set aside.

ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus

may very kindly be issued and the petitioner be held entitled for the benefit of their adhoc service towards bunching and stagnation scale with effect from due date and the pay fixation of petitioners be ordered to be

reaffixed with all consequential benefits after granting benefits of bunching of increments in view of judgment passed in CWPOA 7531 of 2019 titled Madan

.

Lal vs. State of H.P (Annexure P-5) in

the interest of justice and fair play.

iii) That the respondents may kindly be

directed to pay the arrear accrued on account of granting benefits of bunching of increments with interest

@ 12% interest till the date of realization."

2. In terms of the reliefs so claimed, petitioner at

the very outset submits that their case for grant of

bunching increments is squarely covered by the judgment

passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court, in CWPOA

No.7531 of 2019, titled as Madan Lal vs. State of H.P.,

decided on 30.12.2022, Annexure P-5, and the petitioner

being similarly placed has been singled out and denied the

benefits.

3. Per contra, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional

Advocate General, vehemently opposes the prayer of the

petitioners, on the ground that the petitioner is claiming

the relief of bunching increments for an anterior period

belatedly. However, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the case of the petitioner shall be examined in

light of the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this

Court in Madan Lal's case (supra).

.

4. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for

the petitioner submits that he shall make a representation

to the Respondent No.2-Director of Elementary Education

to the Government of H.P. within two weeks from today;

with further directions to the aforesaid respondent to

decide the same within six weeks thereafter.

5. Needless to say that, this Court has not

adjudicated upon the merits of the matter and all questions

of facts of law are left open.

As aforesaid, the instant writ petition, as well

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

stand disposed of, accordingly.

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge

November 4, 2023 (himani)