IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 8679 of 2008 Date of decision: 08.12.2010 ________________________________________________________________ Kaka Ram Tomar. .....Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. & others. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. R.D. Kaundal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. None for respondent No. 4. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs vide para 7(a), (b) and (c): “7(a) That the applicant is lawfully entitled to First Proficiency increment after completion of 24 years of service as Junior Basic Trained Teacher, which falls due on 17.10.1990. (b) That after service of 32 years the applicant is entitled to Higher Pay Scale of Rs. 5480-8925 with Pay Fixation at next higher stage with effect from 17.10.1998. (iii) That result of JBT Examination which was conducted in the year 1970-71 in which the applicant appeared and answered all question Papers with greatest efficiency, talent, and knowledge and professional skill, at his command, may be ordered to be communicated to him with all consequential reliefs of higher pay scales from time to time, which the respondents have failed to convey up till 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2.. today despite repeated requests.” 2. In reply, on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3, the following stand has been taken vide paras 6(iii), (iv) and (x): “6(iii). Admitted as the circumstances described are correct as per record. But is also submitted that the incumbent has passed the JBT training in August, 19/1976. (iv) Denied with this submission that so far as conduction of exams and declaration of result of JBT training is concerned it is exclusively responsibility/Jurisdiction of the H.P. School Education Board and not of the Education Deptt. Hence, Deptt. is not liable for any lapse on the part of some other agency, Department has not caused any harassment to the plaintiff. (x) Contents of this para denied with the submission that contention of the para is not based on the facts. In this connection, it is submitted that the Assured Career Progression Scheme is a scheme which is a necessary corollary decision of the change in existing system of prop. Setup(s) which was notified by the HP Govt. Fin. Department dated 14.06.1989. Under the instruction of the Fin. Department of HP Govt. vide letter No. Fin. (PR)B(7)-17/90 dated 22.05.1990 at Sr. No. 15. It has been clarified that the benefit of the prop.step-up(s) will be granted to teacher from the date of qualifying the JBT training Services & Assured Career Progression Scheme also based upon that provision/principles. In this particular case the benefit of 24 years of services in a cadre have been granted vide O/O No. ES-16/2k(Pry.Edu) 5846 dated 22-02-2001 w.e.f. 19.08.2002 (as on completion of 24 years regarding services). So far as question of 32 years service is concern the contention of the plaintiff is denied as the incumbent will complete his 32 years service on 19.08.2008. Hence, the benefit will be granted on the due date or otherwise will be admissible on that time.” 3. In view of the above reply, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal position, he may certainly point out the same by way of appropriate representation before the first respondent/competent authority within a period of one month from today alongwith copy of this judgment and the said respondent/competent authority shall decide the same within another three months after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. ...3... 4. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 8th December, 2010 (virender)