CWP(T) No.6909/2008 17.08.2010 Present: Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. for the respondents According to Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, the controversy in issue stands settled except for the payment of the TA bills and interest. He further submits that even though petitioner was otherwise entitled to higher amount of payment towards the same, but however the sum of Rs.6550/- as stands admitted by the respondents in their reply be directed to be released to the petitioner. 2. In the reply, the respondents-state has stated as under:- “The TA Bills of the applicant are very old too i.e. for the year December 1986 to February 1988 amounting to Rs.6550/- was sanctioned and the same were sent to R.O. Sangrah vide this office letter No. 3581 dated 02-8-1988 for making the payment to the applicant. The concerned records are being traced out from old records.” 3. From the record, it could not be verified as to whether the said amount stands disbursed to the petitioner or not. Hence, a direction is issued to the respondents to release the aforesaid amount towards TA Bills, if already not disbursed, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The amount was sanctioned way back in the year 1988. Thus petitioner shall also be entitled to interest @9% P.A. on the same. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. August 17, 2010 (rana) CWP(T) No.6910/2008 17.08.2010 Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. A.G. for the respondents According to Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, petitioner has taken away the brief from him. He seeks permission to withdraw his Vakalatnama. Allowed. Let court notice be issued to the petitioner returnable for 27.9.2010. Name of Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate and his colleague be not reflected in the cause list. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. August 17, 2010 (rana) CWP(T) No.6885/2008 CWP(T) No.6886/2008 17.08.2010 Present: Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. for the respondents Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the matter is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in L.P.A. No. 36/2010, titled as Sita Ram vs. State of H. P. & Ors., a copy of which is taken on record and the decision rendered by this Court in Paras Ram v. State, Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 887. The facts are similar and the directions issued in Data Ram (supra) be also issued in this case. 2. In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that the directions issued in Data Ram (supra) shall mutatis mutandis apply to the instant case also. Consequential action be positively taken within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The petitions stand disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. August 17, 2010 (rana) CWP(T) No. 6888/2008 17.08.2010 Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. for the respondents Inspite of repeated calls none has entered appearance on behalf of the petitioner. In the interest of justice, list on 18.08.2010. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. August 17, 2010 (rana) CWP(T) No. 6920/2008 17.08.2010 Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. for the respondents List on 18.08.2010. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. August 17, 2010 (rana) CWP(T) No. 6933/2008 17.08.2010 Present: Mr. Y. S. Thakur, vice Mr. K. D. Shreedhar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. for the respondents Rejoinder be filed within 3 weeks. List on 22.9.2010. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. August 17 2010 (rana) CWP(T) No. 6908/2008 17.08.2010 Present: Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. for the respondents In the reply, the respondents have categorically stated that the services of the petitioner were regularized as Chainman w.e.f. 28.1.1998. This fact has not been controverted by the petitioner by filing a rejoinder. Now undisputedly the posts of Chainman were created by the Govt. on 20.12.1997. Even though he had become eligible for being regularized as a Chainman in the year 1995 but however, his right to regularization was subject to creation of post in terms of policy dated 11.12.1997 (Annexure R/IV). The present petition undoubtedly has become infructuous. Hence, as agreed upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no further orders can be passed in the present petition. The same stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. August 17 2010 (rana) CWP(T) No. 6872/2008 17.08.2010 Present: Mr. Rajesh Raghuvanshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. for respondents No.1 & 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner be permitted to withdraw the present petition to enable him to assail the IRDP certificate issued in favour of private respondent No.3, before the appropriate authority. Undisputedly, the same has not been challenged. There is also nothing on record to substantiate the falsehood of such certificate. Without going into the merits of the case, the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is accepted. Liberty granted. The petition stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. August 17 2010 (rana) CWP(T) No. 6889/2008 17.08.2010 Present: Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. for the respondents According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, except for the relief of payment for the vacation period the present petition has become infructuous. 2. According to the learned counsel for the parties, the matter in issue is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Rakesh Chand & Ors. vs. State of H.P. & Ors. CWP(T) No. 781/2008, a copy of which is taken on record in CWP(T) No. 5970/2008 and the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Baldev Singh vs. State, CWP No. 415 of 2000. According to the learned counsel for the parties, the facts are similar and the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid cases be applied mutatis mutandis to the facts of the instant case also. They further state that the arrears are to be restricted for a period of 3 years prior to the date of filing of the petition keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Jai Dev Gupta vs. State of H.P. AIR 1998 SC 281. Ordered accordingly. 3. The present petition is disposed of with the observations that the directions issued in the aforesaid cases shall apply mutatis mutandis to the facts of the instant case also. However, the arrears of revised pay scale shall be paid only for a period of 3 years prior to the date of filing of the petition. Consequential action including the payment of vacation salary for the entire period shall be taken within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which thereafter petitioner shall be entitled to interest @9% per annum. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. August 17, 2010 (rana) RSA No. 414/1998 with CWP No. 1858 of 1995 RSA No. 414/1998 17.08.2010 Present: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. G. C. Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate, for the respondent. CWP No. 1858 of 1995 Mr. G. C. Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate, for respondent No.1 Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. for respondents No. 2 & 3 Mr. G. C. Gupta, learned senior counsel submits that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties his client be permitted to approach the Municipal Corporation for taking appropriate action, in accordance with law. Let petitioner Ram Lal Sharma approach the respondent corporation within 10 days. The respondent corporation shall consider his proposal, in accordance with law within a period of 4 weeks thereafter. List on 4.10.2010. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. August 17, 2010 (rana) RSA No.251/1999 17.08.2010 Present: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.1 Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. for respondent No.2 The dispute pertains to 14 sq. yards of land over which a shop has been constructed in Jogindernagar township. The parties have been litigating since the year 1988. Interest of justice demands that the parties must endeavour to amicably resolve their dispute. Learned counsel for the parties are agreeable to this suggestion. However, they request that the parties/their authorized representatives be directed to be present in Court for the said purpose. Ordered accordingly. List on 1.9.2010 for the presence of parties/their authorized representatives. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. August 17, 2010 (rana) RSA No.251/1999 17.08.2010 Present: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.1 Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. for respondent No.2 The dispute pertains to 14 sq. yards of land over which a shop has been constructed in the Jogindernagar township. The parties have been litigating since the year 1988. The interest of justice demands that the parties must endeavour amicably to resolve their dispute. Learned counsel for the parties are agreeable to the suggestion of the Court. However, they request that the parties/their authorized representatives be directed to be present in Court for the said purpose. Ordered accordingly. List on 1.9.2010 for the presence of parties/their authorized representatives. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. August 17, 2010 (rana) CWP(T) No. 6906/2008 17.08.2010 Present: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. for the respondents In the rejoinder it is specifically mentioned that one Sh. Sanjay Kumar who was junior to the petitioner was considered for appointment. This fact needs to be specifically controverted by the respondents-state. Let respondent No.1 file his personal affidavit within a period of 2 weeks from today. The averments made in the petition be also controverted. List on 06.09.2010. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. August 17, 2010 (rana) CWP(T) No. 6923/2008 17.08.2010 Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. for the respondents Inspite of pass over none has entered appearance on behalf of the petitioner. In the interest of justice, list on 18.08.2010. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. August 17, 2010 (rana) CWP(T) No. 6924/2008 17.08.2010 Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. for the respondents Inspite of pass over none has entered appearance on behalf of the petitioner. In the interest of justice, list on 18.08.2010. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. August 17, 2010 (rana) CWP(T) No.6887/2008 17.08.2010 Present: Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. for the respondents Mr. R. M. Bisht, learned Dy. Advocate General has placed on record instructions dated 13.9.2006. It reads as under:- “No. Ayur-E(3)-54/2006 Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Ayurveda. From The Secretary (Ayurveda) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2 To The Addl. Advocate General, H.P. Administrative Tribunal, Shimla-2. Dated shimla-2 the 13th September, 2006 Sub: O.A. No. 2980/2000 – Shri Rajiv Kumar Saundhi (MO) vs. State. Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter No.2980/2000-14136, dated 25.8.2006 on the above cited subject and to inform you that as per Recruitment & Promotion Rules for appointment in the post of Ayurvedic Medical Officers (Class-I Gazetted), the maximum age limit is 45 years. It is pertinent to mention that if the petitioner’s age is between 18 to 45 years he shall be eligible to be appointed on batch wise basis as and when the appointments are to be made by the Government. Sd/- Deputy Secretary (Ayurveda) to the Govt. of H. P.” 2. From the same, it is evident that if found eligible, petitioner would be considered for appointment on batch wise basis. This of course would be at the time when the Govt. considered making appointments. As on date, petitioner has crossed the age of 45 years, but however at the time when the instructions were issued petitioner was eligible. Unfortunately, the matter was not brought to the notice of the Court at that time. 3. It is orally submitted by Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner that Govt. has taken a conscious decision of relaxing the criteria of age in the case of other similarly situated persons. This was done in the year 2009. This fact is not evident from the record. Subsequent developments which have taken place have not been placed on record by way of an affidavit. No steps have also been taken for amending the present petition. 4. Be that as it may be, considering the instructions issued by the Deputy Secretary (Ayurveda) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, present petition is disposed of with the directions that petitioner’s case for appointment, on batch wise basis, be considered in accordance with law. This shall be done as and when the appointments are being made by the Govt. on batch wise basis. With regard to the criteria of age, the Govt. shall also consider relaxing the same. Needless to add any such decision shall be taken strictly, in accordance with law and the prevailing policy at the relevant time. Petition is disposed off with the aforesaid observations. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. August 17, 2010 (rana) CWP(T) No.6856/2008 17.08.2010 Present: Mr. Y. S. Thakur, vice Mr. K. D. Shreedhar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. for the respondents Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the matter is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in CWP(T) No. 6165/2008, titled as Data Ram vs. State of H. P.. The facts are similar and the directions issued in Data Ram (supra) be also issued in this case. 2. In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that the directions issued in Data Ram (supra) shall mutatis mutandis apply to the instant case also. Consequential action be positively taken within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The petition stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. August 17, 2010 (rana) CWP(T) No. 6859/2008 17.08.2010 Present: Mr. V. D. Khidta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition has become infructuous due to subsequent developments. He further submits that for additional benefits petitioner be permitted to make a representation to respondent No.1. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the same. It is always open for the petitioner to make a representation to respondent No.1, which shall be considered in accordance with law expeditiously. Any such representation shall be considered and decided by passing a speaking order within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. August 17, 2010 (rana) CWP(T) No. 6870/2008 17.08.2010 Present: Mr. Yash W. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. for the respondents Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that with the passage of time no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Hence, the petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. August 17, 2010 (rana) CWP(T) No. 6852/2008 17.08.2010 Present: Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. for the respondents Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that relief No.(i) has become infructuous. Qua relief No. (ii), he submits that the matter in issue is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in State of H.P. vs. Vijay Singh, CWP No. 144 of 2000. This fact is not disputed by Mr. R. K. Sharma, learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General. As such the directions issued in the aforesaid case shall apply mutatis mutandis to the facts of the instant case also. The petition stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. August 17, 2010 (rana) CWP(T) No. 6855/2008 17.08.2010 Present: Mr. Surinder Saklani, vice counsel for the petitioner. Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. for the respondents Adjournment has been prayed for on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner. List on 25.8.2010. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. August 17 2010 (rana) CWP(T) No. 6891/2008 17.08.2010 Present: Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. for the respondents According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, except for the relief of payment for the vacation period the present petition has become infructuous. 2. According to the learned counsel for the parties, the matter in issue is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Rakesh Chand & Ors. vs. State of H.P. & Ors. CWP(T) No. 781/2008, a copy of which is taken on record in CWP(T) No. 5970/2008 and the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Baldev Singh vs. State, CWP No. 415 of 2000. According to the learned counsel for the parties, the facts are similar and the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid cases be applied mutatis mutandis to the facts of the instant case also. They further state that the arrears are to be restricted for a period of 3 years prior to the date of filing of the petition keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Jai Dev Gupta vs. State of H.P. AIR 1998 SC 281. Ordered accordingly. 3. The present petition is disposed of with the observations that the directions issued in the aforesaid cases shall apply mutatis mutandis to the facts of the instant case also. However, the arrears of revised pay scale shall be paid only for a period of 3 years prior to the date of filing of the petition. Consequential action including the payment of vacation salary for the entire period shall be taken within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which thereafter petitioner shall be entitled to interest @9% per annum. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. August 17, 2010 (rana) CWP(T) No. 6934/2008 17.08.2010 Present: Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. for the respondents According to the learned counsel for the parties, the matter in issue is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Rakesh Chand & Ors. vs. State of H.P. & Ors. CWP(T) No. 781/2008, a copy of which is taken on record in CWP(T) No. 5970/2008 and the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Baldev Singh vs. State, CWP No. 415 of 2000. According to the learned counsel for the parties, the facts are similar and the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid cases be applied mutatis mutandis to the facts of the instant case also. They further state that the arrears are to be restricted for a period of 3 years prior to the date of filing of the petition keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Jai Dev Gupta vs. State of H.P. AIR 1998 SC 281. Ordered accordingly. 2. The present petition is disposed of with the observations that the directions issued in the aforesaid cases shall apply mutatis mutandis to the facts of the instant case also. However, the arrears of revised pay scale shall be paid only for a period of 3 years prior to the date of filing of the petition. Consequential action including the payment of vacation salary for the entire period shall be taken within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which thereafter petitioner shall be entitled to interest @9% per annum. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. August 17, 2010 (rana) CWP(T) No. 6873/2008 17.08.2010 Present: Mr. Rajesh Raghuvanshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. for respondents No.1 & 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner be permitted to withdraw the present petition to enable him to assail the IRDP certificate issued in favour of private respondent No.3, before the appropriate authority. Undisputedly, the same has not been challenged. There is also nothing on record to substantiate the falsehood of such certificate. Without going into the merits of the case, the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is accepted. Liberty granted. The petition stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. August 17 2010 (rana) CWP(T) No. 2070/2008 17.08.2010 Present: Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. for respondents No.1 & 2 Mr. D. K. Khanna, Advocate, for respondent No.3 4. For the aforesaid reasons, the present petition without any merit is dismissed. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. August 17 2010 (rana) FAO No. 448/2005 16.08.2010 Present: Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. T. S. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.1 Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 4 CMP No.932/2009 This application to lead additional evidence has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.3, the owner of the vehicle. The application has been vehemently opposed by the appellant- insurer for the reason that the applicant has got no locus to file the same as he had never appeared as a witness before the Tribunal. 2. There is no dispute that he was a party before the Tribunal. There is no legal requirement for any party to appear as a witness in every proceedings. Claimant has to lead its evidence to prove its case. Further parties can have a common stand also. The plea needs to be rejected. 3. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal, inter alia framed the following issue:- “3. Whether the driver of the vehicle No. HP-33-7551 had not been in possession of a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, if so with what effect? OPR-3.” 4. The learned Tribunal decided the issue by holding as under: “28. While deciding issue No.1, it has been decided that the vehicle in question was being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and the petitioner suffered injuries because of this accident. Now the question comes as to whether the respondent No.1 was holding a valid and effective driving licence or not. No oral evidence has been led by the respondent No.3, the insurer of the offending vehicle except tendering documents and he has only produced on record Ext. RB copy of insurance cover note of the offending vehicle. However, RW-1 Ramesh Kumar while appearing as his own witness has placed on record learner licence Ext.RW-1/A, which is admittedly a learner licence and was valid from 9.5.2002 to 8.11.2002. The accident in question has admittedly taken place on 17.6.2002. Therefore, at the time of accident Ramesh Kumar, respondent No.1 was definitely holding a learner licence. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred above, a person holding a learner licence is entitled to drive a vehicle. Therefore, in view of the