IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 12536 of 2008 Decided on : 16.08.2011 ________________________________________________ Urmila Devi … Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents. ___________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. A.G., with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A.G, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Varun Chandel, Advocate, vice Mr. Sandeep Sharma, ASGI, for respondent No.4. _____________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge (oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7 (i), (ii) and (iii):- “(i). That the act of the respondents in considering the applicant as Language Teacher in the Cadre of Language Teacher w.e.f. 20-8-1995 may kindly be declared illegal, contrary, unconstitutional and 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 unsustainable in the eyes of law and the respondents may further be directed to consider the applicant as Language Teacher w.e.f 10-10-1969 when the applicant initially joined against the post of Language Teacher like Krishna Jyoti for all purposes. (ii) That the respondents may further be directed to release all the consequential benefits to the applicant i.e. Selection Grade of Rs.620-1200 w.e.f. 29-8-1980 the date the same has been provided to Krishna Jiyoti, the proficiency increments on completion of 24 and 32; years of service and two special increments on completion of twenty years of service etc. (iii) That the respondent may further be directed to release the arrears of pay/increments alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.” 2. In reply, the following stand has been taken on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3, vide para 2 of the preliminary submissions and paras 3, 6(vi), (vii) and (xi) on merits:- “2. That in the instant case the applicant was awarded the L T scale in the year 1985, hence, the applicant should have approached this Hon’ble Tribunal within the year, but the applicant failed to do so and filed the present original application in the year 2005 i.e after lapse of about 20 years. Therefore, the present original application is liable to be 3 dismissed being barred by the limitation under section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 3. That the present Original Application filed by the applicant is not maintainable as the applicant is not entitled to claim for inclusion in L.T. cadre w.e.f. 10-10-1969 for awarding two special increments on completion of 20- years service as she failed to produce requisite documents before the respondent Department at relevant time. Therefore the present original application deserves dismissal and the applicant ahs rightly been awarded the L.T. scale/grade w.e.f. 20-08-1985 as per rules. 6(vi) That in reply to the contents of this para it is submitted that the applicant is not entitled for claim for inclusion in L.T. cadre w.e.f. 10-10-1969 for awarding two special increments on completion of 20 years service as she failed to produce requisite documents before the respondent Department at relevant time. Therefore the present original application deserves dismissal and the applicant has rightly been awarded the L.T. scale/grade on 20-08-1985 as per rules. (vii) That in reply to the contents of this para it is submitted that smt. Krishna Jyoti has rightly been provided with the pay scale of L.T. and the seniority in the cadre of L.T. w.e.f. 1969 however the applicant has been awarded the same scale w.e.f. 1985 as she 4 has failed to produce the relevant documents before the Department. (xi) That in reply to the contents of this para it is submitted that the applicant is not entitled to claim for inclusion in L.T. cadre w.e.f. 10-10-1969 for awarding two special increments on completion of 20 yeas service as she failed to produce requisite documents before the respondent Department at relevant time. Therefore the present original application deserves dismissal and the applicant has rightly been awarded the L.T. scale/grade w.e.f 20-08-1985 as per rules..” 3. In reply, the respondent No.4 has taken the following stand vide paras 3 and 6:- 3. The admissible pensionary benefits has already been authorized in the year April, 2002. Further position of the case has been explained in Para 6 of the reply. 6. As per O.A., the applicant has mainly contested to consider her as language teacher w.e.f 10/10/69 instead of 20/8/1985 and grant of selection grade w.e.f 29/8/1980 at par with the other similarly situated employee and revision of pensionary benefits accordingly. In this connection it is submitted that it is the concern of the Respondent Department and Replying Respondent has nothing to do in this regard. However, if pension case of the applicant after allowing the selection grade 5 etc. by the Respondent department is re- submitted by the deptt, the Replying Respondent will consider the case for revision of pensionary benefits if otherwise the case is found in order. At present there is no action on the part of the Replying Respondent. Rest of the averments needs no submissions.” 4. It is seen from the records that the case of the petitioner for grant of the reliefs prayed for at par with her counterpart Smt. Krishna Jyoti, has been denied by the respondent-department mainly for the reason that “she failed to produce requisite documents before the respondent Department at the relevant time”. However, it is not specified as to what were those “requisite documents”. 5. In para 6 (v) the petitioner has averred as under:- “That the applicant was provided with the pay scale of Language Teacher w.e.f. 20-1- 1967, the date of qualifying Prabhakar Examination and the pay of the applicant was fixed accordingly vide order dated 9-4-1981 by the respondent No.3, the then Deputy Director of Education Kangra.” 6. The above averments have been categorically admitted on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 in the corresponding para of their reply “being matter of record”, meaning thereby that correctness of the aforesaid 6 order dated 9.4.1981, whereby, the petitioner was granted pay scale of Language Teacher w.e.f. 20.1.1967, the date of qualifying Prabhakar Examination and her pay was fixed accordingly, stands admitted in no uncertain terms. 7. In view of the above, the petition is allowed with a direction to respondents No. 1 to 3/competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Language Teacher along with consequential benefits, if any, from the due date at par with the aforesaid Smt. Krishna Jyoti, within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner before the respondents/competent authority. 8. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. August 16, 2011. (Lsp)