IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No.16651 of 2008 Decided on: 8.11.2010 Munsi Ram ………Petitioner Versus The State of H.P. and ors. ………..Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge For the petitioner (s): Ms. Nishi Goel vice Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. For the respondents-State: Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral): According to the petitioner, his case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in CWP No. 1802 of 2002, titled State of Himachal Pradesh & others versus Mr. Basheshar Lal, decided on 31.7.2008, relevant text of which reads as follows:- “This Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the State against the orders dated 8.5.2002, passed by the learned H.P.State Administrative Tribunal, hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ in OA(D) No.283 of 1996. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent joined as Panchayat Secretary on February 1, 1962 in the Development Block, Kangra. The services of the respondents and few others were placed under the control of Panchayat Samiti w.e.f. June 15, 1965. Subsequently, the services of all the 2 employees of the Panchayat Samiti except that of the Panchayat Secretaries, were taken over by the State Government and they were absorbed in the Rural Development Department w.e.f. March 11,1978. Later on, the services of the respondent and other Panchayat Secretaries were also taken over by the State Government w.e.f. June 1, 1984 and such employees were also absorbed in the Panchayat Department. The respondent thereafter was promoted as Panchayat Inspector in accordance with seniority and merit and also retired on October 31, 1991. However, he filed OA before the Tribunal alleging that his pervious service had not been counted and he has not been given the consequential benefits and his pay deserved to be fixed accordingly keeping in view the past service rendered by him. In the reply filed by the State Government, they took up the plea that the applicant had not rendered qualifying service of 10 years. They also pleaded that the benefit of past service rendered in the Panchayat Samitis had been given to the persons absorbed in the Rural Development Department but these have not been granted to the applicant and similarly placed persons since they were absorbed in the Panchayat Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The learned Tribunal after considering the pleas raised by the parties allowed the OA. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-State has come up in the present writ petition. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The only ground taken by the State of Himachal Pradesh was that since the petitioners were absorbed in the Panchayat Department of Government of Himachal Pradesh while others were absorbed in the Rural Development Department, therefore, the past services rendered have been considered by the Rural Development Department and not the past services rendered by the petitioner and others who have been absorbed in the Panchayat Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 3 The learned Tribunal had considered this plea and had observed that the past services rendered in the Panchayat Samitis have been considered by one wing of the State of Himachal Pradesh i.e. Rural Development Department while the another wing had denied this benefit of past services rendered by the Panchayat Secretaries though both these departments are part of the Government and surprisingly headed by the same Secretary. The learned Tribunal had made reference to some of the decisions including the one rendered by the Tribunal itself and had concluded that since the petitioners and others had also rendered the service in the same capacity under the Panchayat Samitis which benefit has been given to the persons absorbed in the Rural Development Department, it could not have been denied to the persons like the petitioners and others absorbed in the Panchayat Department of Government of Himachal Pradesh. No different treatment could have been meted out to the employees placed similarly and, therefore, the Tribunal had rightly directed the present petitioners to release all the retiral benefits in favour of the applicant/petitioners after counting the services rendered by them in the Panchayat Samitis. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality and calls for no interference by this Court. There is no merit in the petition filed by the petitioners which is dismissed accordingly alongwith costs quantified at Rs.3000/-.” 2. Since the petitioner, herein, claims that he is also similarly situated person, therefore, there will be a direction to the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner in light of the judgment, extracted above, and take appropriate action in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition by the petitioner. 4 3. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s) if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice (Justice V.K. Ahuja), December, 8 2010 Judge (tilak/pankaj)