IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 6487 of 2008 Date of decision: 24.11.2010 ________________________________________________________________ Kishori Lal. .....Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. .....Respondent. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: None for the petitioner For the respondent: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. None for the respondent No. 4. V.K. Sharma, J (Oral). The petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs vide para 7(i) and (ii) “7(i) The impugned agreement dt. 27.11.98 may be called for from the respondents and the same may be quashed and set-aside with the directions to respondent No. 4 to treat the applicant under his control for all intents and purposes and if his services have never been handed over. (ii) Respondents No. 1 to 3 may be directed in the alternative to treat the applicant in service from the date of join the service with respondent No. 4 i.e. seniority, pay, pension, etc. etc. and with further directions to give all consequential promotions also. 2. In the reply, on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3, the following stand has been taken vide para 6(i): 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... 6(i). That the contents of this para are admitted that the applicant was engaged by the respondent No. 4 i.e. cantonment Board as JBT Teacher. But however, it is submitted that H.P. govt. vide notification dated 19.7.90 had agreed to take over the Kasba Narwana and Tangroti school run by the Conton Board with the conditions as mentioned in the notification. The copy of the notification is annexed as the same is marked as Annexure R-I and its English translation R-I/A. After the issuance of this notification, the Under Secretary Ministry of Defence to the Govt. of India on dated 10.7.97 wrote a letter to the Director General of Defence Estates Ministry of Defence vide which he has conveyed the sanction of the Central Government to transfer the Primary School Located in Kasba Narwana and Tangroti to the Government of Himachal Pradesh subject to the terms and conditions as referred in the letter. The copy of the letter is also annexed as Annexure R-2. The copy of this Annexure has also been endorsed to the replying respondent after then the contonment Executive Officer vide letter Dated 6.9.97 requested the replying respondent to issue the necessary instruction to take over the above named school from the Contonment Board alongwith existing teachers, however, in this letter the Executive Officer has made it clear that a written agreement may be executed at the time of handing/taking over the school. The copy of the letter is also attached and the same is marked as Annexure R-3. Thereafter on the basis of these facts and replying respondent wrote a letter to the respondent No. 2 regarding the taking over the school run by the Contonment Board. The copy of letter is also annexed and the same is marked as annexure R-4 and its English version is marked as Annexure R-4/A. So in pursuance to this letter the school run by the Contonment Board has been takn over by the respondent/department on 27.11.1998 and at the time of taking and handing over, the respondent No. 2 District Primary Education Officer Dharamshala executed on agreement with the Executive Officer of the Contonment Board. The copy of the agreement is also attached and the same is marked as Annexure R-5. However, it is further submitted that in the notification i.e. annexure R-I it has been clearly mentioned that the teacher will be placed junior most in the seniority list, however, they will be given protection in respect of their annual increment ...2... and pensionary benefit only. Same conditions and terms had also been agreed by the respondent No. 4 vide annexure R-2 and also at the time of executing the agreement Annexure R-5. Hence there nothing to show on record that the replying respondent has given arbitrary treatment to the applicant. 3. In the reply, on behalf of respondent No. 4, the following stand has been taken vide para 6(i): 6(i). That in reply to this para it is admitted that he was appointed as JBT teacher in Cantonment Board Khas Yol Primary School with effect from 16-1-1968. The Cantonment Board Khas Yol was running two Primary Schools namely Primary School Kasba Narwana and primary School Tangroti outside the limits of the Cantonment as the area of Khasba Narwana and Tangroti where the sad schools are located were excised in the year 1986. The Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence, vide their letter dated 10-7-97, copy enclosed as Annexure 'R-1', conveyed the sanction of the Central Govt. to the transfer of above schools to the State Govt. of Himachal Pradesh with a condition that from the date of taking over the services of the existing teachers will stand transferred to the State Govt. The teachers will be placed Junior most in the seniority list maintained by the Education Department for the primary schools and will be given protection in respect of their annual increment and pensionary benefits only. At the time of handing over of these schools to the State Govt. on 27-11-98, Shri Kishori Lal was serving in Primary School Kasba Narwana and thus as per sanction of the Central Govt., his services wee transferred to the State Govt. A copy of agreement executed with State of Himachal Pradesh through District Primary Education Officer Dharamshala is enclosed as Annexure 'R-2'. The concerned teacher has been given protection in his pay, annual increments and pensionary benefits. He will get full pensionary benefits on the basis of his total length of service rendered in the Cantonment Board Khas Yol and with Himachal Pradesh State Govt. (Education Department). For the rest of the contents of this para it is denied that replying respondent has acted illegally as in Annexure 'R-1' an arbitrary manner but the true position is that t he decision ...4... of transferring the school is not of the replying respondent but of the Govt. of India Ministry of Defence vide its order dated 10-7-97.........Annexure 'R-1'. 4. In view of the above replies, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal position, it will be open to him to approach respondent No. 2 alongwith copy of this judgment within a month from today, in which case the said respondent will look into the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law and justice and appropriate orders thereon shall be passed within next three months. 5. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 24th November, 2010 (virender)