1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. C.W.P(T) No. 12188 of 2008 Date of Decision: 23.12.2011 Sh. Suresh Kumar s/o sh. Naranjan Ram, R/o village Kalswai, P.O Dharampur, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. Presently working as cook at Industrial Training Institute, Mandi, H.P. .. Petitioner. Vs. 1. State of H.P though Secretary (Technical Education), Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-171002. 2. The Director, Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training, Himachal Pradesh, Sundernagar, District Mandi. H.P. 3. Principal, Industrial Training Institute, Mandi, H.P. ..Respondents. Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Chaudhary,Advocate For the Respondents: Mr.R.M Bisht Dy.A.G with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy.A.G. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral). My attention has been invited to the judgment delivered by this court in CWP(T) No. 14148 of 2008 titled as Dalip Kumar vs. State of H.P & others decided on 24.8.2010, copy of which is taken 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 on record. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- “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 the respondents have admitted that the work and conduct of the petitioner 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. Hence the petition needs to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. The respondents are directed to take consequential action of making payment to the petitioner w.e.f. 25.7.2003. Respondents are directed to take all consequential action 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.” 2. I find that except for the names of the parties, facts and similar. In the instant case, petitioner was also appointed as a cook in terms of order dated 7.5.2002 (Annexure A-1), relevant portion of which reads as under:- “On the basis of recommendations made by the Selection Committee as Directorate, it is proposed to engage smt/shri/Suresh Kumar son/daughter/wife of Niranjan Singh against the post of cook at Industrial Training Institute, Mandi (H.P) 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 3 conduct is found satisfactory, he/she will get the allowances at the rates admissible to other employees of his category.” 3. In the instant case also, it is not the case of the respondents that staff from surplus pool had been deployed or that petitioner’s work was not found to be satisfactory. Hence, directions issued in Dalip Kumar (supra) shall mutatis mutandis apply to the present case also. Respondents are directed to take all consequential action of making payments, in accordance with law, to the petitioner w.e.f 7.5.2002, in terms of order dated 7.5.2002. Needful shall positively be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment, failing which, then thereafter, petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, which shall be personally recovered from the erring officials. 4. The present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Sanjay Karol),Judge. December 23,2011 (Priti)