Dr. Bhishm Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 17981 HP

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
                            AT SHIMLA

                                                              CWP No.8916 of 2023
                                            Decided on: 16th November, 2023




                                                                         .
    __________________________________________________________





    Dr. Bhishm Sharma
                                                     ....Petitioner
                               Versus





    State of Himachal Pradesh and others
                                                                        ......Respondents
    Coram





    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
    1 Whether approved for reporting?                  Yes

    For the petitioner:                  Mr. Arun Raj, Advocate.

    For the respondents:                 Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate

                                         General.

    Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral)

The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition,

with the following prayer:-

"The respondents may kindly be directed to

count entire service rendered by the petitioner on contract basis before his regularization an

same may be counted for the purpose of grant of benefit under 4, 9, 14 years (Assured Carrier Progression Scheme) pay scale on the similar pattern as has been extended to other Medical Officers (General), Medical Officers (Dental)

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

and Veterinary Officers (Regular) as per the judgment dated 02.03.2023 in CWP No.1599/2020 a/w connected matters (Annexure P-3) passed by this Hon'ble Court."

.

2. The case of the petitioner, as submitted by

Mr. Arun Raj, learned counsel, is that the petitioner joined

service as a Veterinary Officer, under the State Government, on

contract basis, on 24th April, 2003, and after rendering

sufficiently long contractual service, he was regularized in the

3.

The only

Respondent-Department on 08.08.2012, Annexure P-1, with

immediate effect.

case of the petitioner is that the

respondents have issued a Notification on 23rd June, 2000,

Annexure P-2, granting Four Tier Pay Scales to eight categories,

including the category of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary

Services Class-I, i.e. the category of Veterinary Officer, to which

the petitioner belongs. As per him, the Four Tier Pay Scales

were to be released, after reckoning the requisite service of four

years, nine years and fourteen years rendered by the employee

on regular basis only, i.e. post-regularization. It is not in

dispute that on the basis of the regular service, the petitioner

has been granted the admissible benefit of Four Tier Pay Scales

to him.

4. Now, the case put-forth by the petitioner is that

the contractual service rendered by the petitioner as Veterinary

.

Officer from 24th April, 2003, till his regularization on

08.08.2012, Annexure P-1, should also be counted for purposes

of granting the Four Tier Pay Scales (4-9-14 years) afresh to the

petitioner, despite having been granted the admissible benefit of

Four Tier Pay Scales on the basis of regular service

w.e.f. 08.08.2012 onwards; in terms of the judgment, passed by

this Court, in CWP No.1599/2020, titled as Pankaj Kumar

Lakhanpal & ors. Versus State of H.P. & ors. and connected

matters, decided on 2.3.2023, Annexure P-3, against which the

State Government had filed a Special Leave Petition (Civil)

Diary No.31351/2023, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh &

Ors. Versus Dr. Munish Gupta & ors., decided on 28.08.2023,

whereby, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to dismiss the

SLP, filed by the State Government. He submits that thereafter,

the State Government has taken a decision vide letter No.AHY-

B(15)-30/2015-P-IV, dated 18th October, 2023, contained in

communication dated 20th October, 2023, Annexure P-5, giving

approval to implement the judgment passed by the Division

Bench of this Court, in the case of Pankaj Kumar Lakhanpal,

referred to above.

5. Per contra, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional

Advocate General, has vehemently opposed the writ petition, at

.

this stage. He submits that unless and until the petitioner

assails the Notification dated 23rd June, 2000, Annexure P-2,

whereby, the contractual service is not to be taken into account

by granting the Four Tier Pay Scales, till then, the benefit

cannot be extended to him. He further submits that even as per

the Himachal Pradesh Animal Husbandry and Veterinary

Services Class-I (Gazetted) Technical Services Recruitment and

Promotion Rules notified on 28.02.2012 as amended from

time to time [Rules produced and taken on record],

a specific rider exists in Rule 15-A (VII) of these Rules that

benefit of contractual service is not to be extended for other

service benefits, i.e. for senior/selection scale etc., except for

giving contractual emoluments/enhancement thereof, therefore,

unless and until this part of the Rules were assailed and set

aside, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for giving senior scale

or selection scale, including Four Tier Pay Scales when, this

issue was not adjudicated in the case of Pankaj Kumar

Lakhanpal (supra) and, therefore, the claim dehors the Rules

was not tenable.

6. Be that as it may, Mr. Arun Raj, learned counsel for

the petitioner, faced with this situation, prays for permission to

make a representation to respondent No.1-Principal Secretary

.

(Animal Husbandry) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh,

within two weeks from today. The prayer being innocuous, is

also not opposed by the State Counsel.

7. Accordingly, this Court permits the petitioner

to make a representation to respondent No.1-Principal Secretary

(Animal Husbandry) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh,

within two weeks from today; with further directions to the

aforesaid respondent to decide the same and to pass appropriate

orders in the matter, within six weeks thereafter.

8. It is made clear, that this Court, has not adverted

to the rival contentions and merits of the matter and all Questions

of facts and law are left open.

As aforesaid, the writ petition as well as the pending

miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also, stand disposed

of, accordingly.

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge November 16, 2023 (Bhardwaj)