Shri Charan Dass vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 10394 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Shri Charan Dass vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors on 26 July, 2024

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:5870 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWPOA No. 2321 of 2019

.

                                                Reserved on: 19.07.2024





                                                Decided on:          26.07.2024





    Shri Charan Dass.                                                ....Petitioner.

                                        Versus





    State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.                             ...Respondents

    Coram        r

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? 1 No

For the petitioner : Mr.Pushpender Kumar, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge

Petitioner was appointed as Mechanic

Operator in the Forest Department, vide appointment

letter dated 23.06.1982 in the pay scale of Rs. 400-660.

Petitioner accepted the terms of appointment and joined

on 25.06.1982.

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

2. By way of instant petition, petitioner is

seeking direction against respondents to grant him pay

.

scale of Rs. 450-800 from the very inception of his

service with benefits of revision of pay from time to time

on the scale of Rs. 450-800.

3. Petitioner has based his claim on the premise

that before him one Sh. Santokh Singh worked as

Mechanic Operator in the Department

service of Sh. Santokh Singh were transferred from r of Forest. The

Punjab to Himachal Pradesh on reorganization of the

States. The post of Mechanic Operator in the Forest

Department was having pay scale of Rs. 450-800. Sh.

Santokh Singh was also granted the pay scale of

Rs. 450-800, however, the same was subsequently

reduced to Rs. 400-660. On representation of Sh.

Santokh Singh, the pay scale of Rs. 450-800 was

restored to him.

4. The claim of the petitioner has been

contested by respondents on the grounds firstly, that

the same is barred by delay and laches and secondly,

the post of Mechanic Operator as per relevant rules was

allowed the pay scale of Rs. 400-660. It has also been

contended that the petitioner was estopped from

.

claiming the pay scale of Rs. 450-800 as he had

accepted his appointment in the pay scale of Rs. 400-

660 without any reservation.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties

and have also gone through the record.

6.

Petitioner has placed reliance on a document

revealing revision of scales of pay of employees in

Himachal Pradesh w.e.f. 01.01.1978. The pay scales

admissible to the employees of Forest Department in

terms of aforesaid document are also on record. The

category of Mechanic-cum-Operator was having pay

scale of Rs. 450-800 (revised). There was a separate

category of Mechanic Operator having pay scale of Rs.

400-660. There is no dispute as to the designation of

Mechanic Operator held by the petitioner. Since, pay

scale of Rs. 400-660 was made admissible to the said

post, the claim of the petitioner does not appear to be

justified.

7. As regards parity with Sh. Santokh Singh, it

again cannot be a ground for the petitioner for claiming

.

pay scale of Rs. 450-800. There is no material on record

to compare the case of Sh. Santokh Singh with the

petitioner. In any case, the petitioner can lawfully claim

that pay scale, which as per rules is admissible to the

post held by him.

8.

Petitioner was granted the pay scale

Rs. 400-660, vide appointment letter dated 23.06.1982.

                r                                                           of

    Petitioner accepted the same without              any reservation

    and joined as       Mechanic Operator on 25.06.1982.


    Petitioner submitted     his first representation                in the

    year 1987 i.e. after     lapse of five years, which was

rejected by the competent authority on 12.08.1987.

Petitioner again represented to the Principal Chief

Conservator of Forest on 01.12.2003 and this

representation of the petitioner was also rejected on

25.09.2005. Petitioner, thereafter, approached Principal

Secretary (Forest) on 01.03.2005. The Principal

Secretary (Forest) to the Government of Himachal

Pradesh, also rejected the representations/appeal of

the petitioner on 01.05.2006. The instant petition was

filed on 01.12.2011.

.

9. In this factual backdrop, there is no

hesitation to hold that the petitioner has not been

diligent in pursuing the legal remedy. The claim of the

petitioner is hopelessly belated and barred by delay and

laches. It is more than settled that the repeated

10. to representations cannot revive the cause of action.

In light of above discussion, there is no merit

in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.

11. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of, so

also the pending miscellaneous application, if any.

                                              (Satyen Vaidya)
    26th July, 2024                               Judge





         (sushma)