IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 7250 of 2008 Decided on : 16.11.2010 Kishori Lal Nag ..…Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and others. …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr.Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 & 6 : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate. For respondents No. 2 to 5 : Mr.Pushinder Singh Jaswal, Advocate. V.K.Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs vide para 7(i) and (ii):- “i) That the impugned order dated 17.7.1997 (Annexure/A-7) issued by the respondent No. 4, letter/order dated 13.9.1999( Annexure / A-9) and letter dated 4.1.2000 issued by the respondent No.5 and letter dated 7.3.2000 (Annexure /A-12) issued by the respondent No.1 may kindly be quashed and the respondents may please be directed to fix the pay of the applicant as per his option dated 18.11.1995 (Annexure /A-4). ii) The respondents may be directed to give the arrears of pay to the applicant accruing therefrom, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. . 2 alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. to the applicant on delay payment.” 2. In reply on behalf of the respondents, the following averments have been set up vide para 3(i) to (iii):- “3(i) That the replying respondents submit with utmost respect that the claim of the official is false, frivolous, fictitious and uncalled for in as much as the applicant never opted for fixation of his pay under FR-22C (Now FR- 22(1) within period set-up under the rules after the accrual of routine increment hence the case of alleged financial loss, if any suffered to the applicant is his own fault as he did not bring his option on the record of the office, the varacity of the fact to that extent can be verified from the photostat copies as per (Annexure A-3 & A-4) which are self explanatory that the original of the same might have been got marked by the applicant but as somewhere on the same has not been brought on record nor diarised in the official record. Such a lapse on the part of a senior official holding the post of Supdt./Head Clerk is neither explainable nor condonable. Therefore the contention of the plaintiff is denied being factually incorrect besides being legally mis-conceived. (ii) In context the reply respondents submit with utmost respect that it is wrong to allege that the option was refused on the ground of delay, rather it was refused even on the ground that the same ;was not authenticated and brought on the official record and that it was a later manipulation to get the promotional increments. Only the original option letter can be entertained and got pasted in the service book, hence the contention of the applicant is after thought, false, flimsy and fabricated and a share manipulation and therefore denied vehemently. (iii) The contention of the applicant under this sub para is refuted/denied as the concerned office can’t forced to act upon fabricated documents merely to rectify the omission 3 and commission of the employee who has failed to exercise his option within the stipulated period. Further the pay of the official under FR-22C on grant of benefit or promotional increments on completion of 23 years service has been fixed by the competent authorities on 17-7-97 whereas the applicant represented for refixation of pay vide his application dated 30-8-99 i.e after a lapse of a period of more than two years. Had he opted to fix his pay under FR- 22(c) now FR-22(1) after accrual of annual increment, he must has represented for the same immediately after 17-7- 97 on which date the benefit of promotional increments was granted. As the option letter a photo copy (Annexure A-3) was neither marked to any official nor diarised and hence carries no weight. The action of the replying respondents is perfectly legal, inter-virus, bonafide one and consequently the OA deserves only dismissal.” 3. In view of the above reply, it is manifest that the stand taken on behalf of the respondents is self contradictory. On the one hand it is averred that the petitioner never opted for fixation of his pay under FR-22C (now FR-22 (1)) and on the other, it is stated that the option as per Annexures A-3 and A-4, which are self explanatory might have been got marked by the applicant, but the same have not been brought on record nor diarised in the official record. However, the fact remains that It was not for the petitioner to comply with the latter part of the defence raised on behalf of the respondents. 4. It is apparent that option was exercised by the petitioner vide Annexures A-3 and A-4. There is hand written noting on the left hand side margin of Annexure A-3 to the effect that “option retained in the office”, which bears initials of an official. It is also apparent from Annexure A-5 that the option was duly 4 forwarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, NJPC Ltd. Dhalli, Shimla, with which the petitioner was working on secondment basis at the relevant time to the Additional Secretary, P&A Department, NJPC Ltd., Sanjauli, Shimla. 5. Once it is shown that the petitioner had exercised option vide Annexures A-3 and A-4, which was duly forwarded to the concerned authority vide Annexure A-5, it was for the respondents to consider the same and grant the consequential benefit of pay fixation to him. However, since it was not done and the stand taken by the respondents has been found to be without any basis, the petition is allowed with all the consequential benefits. Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of benefit of pay fixation under FR-22C (now FR22(1)) in terms of this judgment within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner within one month from today. The consequential benefits, if any, shall be payable alongwiith interest @ 6% per annum within three months thereafter, failing which higher interest @ 12% per annum shall be payable. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 16th November, 2010. Lsp*