IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 14149 of 2008 Date of Decision : September 21, 2010 Shri Shiv Lal Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. J. S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General for the respondents/State. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the order dated 17.6.2006 contained in Annexure A-9 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the Respondents may be directed to release the allowances on the pay of the Applicant as per his appointment order from the date he has completed one year of service i.e. from 5.8.2003. (ii) That the Respondents may further be directed to release the arrear of allowances to the Applicant from 5.8.2003 with interest @ 12% per annum.” Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. There is no dispute that petitioner’s terms of appointment are governed in terms of office order dated 25.7.2002, relevant portion of which reads as under:- “On the basis of recommendations made by the Selection Committee, it is proposed to engage Shri SHIV LAL son of Shri Goverdhan, Vill. Siah, P.O. Dhaban, The. Sadar, Mandi against the post of Lab. Attendant at Govt. Polytechnic College, Rohru, Distt. Shimla on the pay of Rs. 2620/- (consolidated). His/her work and conduct will be observed for one year from the date of joining and in case no staff is received from the Surplus Pool and his/her work and conduct is found satisfactory, he/she will get the allowances at the rates admissible to other employees of his Category.” 3. Annexure A-9 is the order passed by the respondents relevant portion of which reads as under:- “I also went through other records available regarding such appointments. It revealed that Director, Technical Education vide its office order No. 134 dated 04.02.2002 affirms that those employees who have been appointed w.e.f. 01.02.2002 will be entitled to consolidated salary of Rs. 2620/- only. On further scrutiny of record it transpired that these appointments alongwith others have been found irregular by the Departmental Inquiry Committee constituted by the Department on the receipt of communication from the Department of Personnel, Govt. of Himachal Pradesh to find out illegal/irregular appointments made between March, 1998 to February, 2003 and the findings of enquiry already stand 3 submitted to the Department of Technical Education and Department of Personnel vide No. Per(AP.B)E(3)- 1/2005, dated 03.12.2005 vide this Directorate letter No. STV(TE)H-B(2)10/2003-Vol.V-12719, dated 18.5.2006 respectively. Under the circumstances stated above, I am of considered view that these officials can not be allowed the allowance asked for at this stage.” 4. Petition is being opposed for the reason that only those persons who were employed prior to 31.12.2001 were entitled for the pay scales and allowances at the rates admissible to the other employees in the organisation. 5. Obviously the stand taken by the respondents is contrary to the terms and conditions of the office order dated 25.7.2002. It is not the case of the respondents that the staff from the surplus pool had been deployed or that petitioner’s work was not found to be satisfactory. Petitioner’s appointment can also not be said to be irregular as no action whatsoever was taken in this regard. In fact respondents admit that his work and conduct has been satisfactory. Hence petitioner is entitled to the allowances at such rates as are admissible to other employees of his category in the organisation. There is no dispute that petitioner completed one year of his service in the month of July, 2003. 6. Hence the petition needs to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. 7. Respondents are directed to take consequential action of making payment to the petitioner w.e.f. 25.7.2003. All consequential 4 action be taken within a period of three 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. Petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. September 21, 2010 (PK)