IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 9139 of 2008 Date of decision: 21.04.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Rajesh Kumar. .....Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and others. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. AG. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following substantive prayers vide para 7(i), (ii) and (iii): “7(i) That the impugned orders Annexure A/3 and A/8 may be quashed and set aside being unjust, illegal, improper, unconstitutional null and void and against the principles of natural justice and the respondents may be directed to allow all the annual increments as a Steno-Typist to applicant which were already granted to him or to restore the annual increments already granted to him and to re-fix the pay of the applicant in the sanctioned pay scales, from time to time, to avoid hardship and injustice meted out by the applicant. (ii) That the respondents may be further directed to grant the arrears resulting from the fixation of pay of the applicant and to release the amount alongwith interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date due till the actual date of payment thereof. (iii) That the respondents may be further directed to refund the amount already deducted by them from the monthly salary of the applicant in the garb of alleged excess payment alongwith interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date due till the actual date of payment to him.” 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... 2. In reply, respondents have taken the following stand vide para 6(iv) on merits: “6(iv) Admitted to the extent that the applicant passed the second language test on 15.07.1999. However the annual increments of Shri Rajesh kumar steno typist had been stopped by this Department as the applicant fails to second language test within stipulated period as mentioned in para (iii) as above. The applicant also submitted an application through the SP Enf. N/Z D/Shala received in this office vide letter No. 3043 dated 08.08.2000 requesting there in that his annual increments may be granted w.e.f. 23.04.87 (i.e. the date of his appointment) in accordance with H.P. Govt. notification No. Per(AP-C)A(3)1/97 dated 07.07.2000. Accordingly the office of replying respondent sent his case to Vigilance Deptt. where he was posted earlier to his posting in the Enforcement Department for fixation of his pay. The North Range D/shala of Vigilance Department fixed his pay vide order No. 3916-19 dated 26.07.01 up to 01.04.1993. The further fixation has been made by this Department vide order No. 1239-40 dated 18.02.2002. As such there was no question to issue him show-cause notice etc. as his pay was fixed at his own request.” 3. Insofar as the recovery part is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the very outset that the case of the petitioner is covered under judgment dated 24.03.2011, rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP(T) No. 7390 of 2008, titled Sobha sood vs. The State of H.P. & others. Para 18 of the judgment, being relevant, is extracted below; “18. There is no condition in the appointment letter dated 28.02.1987 that for want of qualifying shorthand/typewriting tests in English, the petitioner will not be entitled to annual increments. The letter dated 07.07.2000 cannot be given retrospective effect for denying increments to the petitioner. It has come on record that petitioner, later on, ...3... qualified even shorthand/typewriting tests in English also. The withdrawal of increments in these circumstances amounts to reduction of pay, which is not possible except by following due process of law. The respondents have wrongly withdrawn annual increments earlier granted to the petitioner. It is not the case of the respondents that for want of satisfactory work, the petitioner is not entitled to annual increments. Thus, seen from any angle, the petitioner is entitled to annual increments with effect from 16.06.1988 onwards. The respondents have wrongly deducted an amount of Rs. 33,527/- from the petitioner on account of alleged over payment of this amount to the petitioner of annual increments.” 4. In view of the above, if on facts, the case of the petitioner is covered under the judgment referred to hereinabove, in CWP (T) No.7390 of 2008, and he is similarly situate, he shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and the benefit of the said judgment shall be extended to him alongwith consequential benefits, if any, within three months from the date of production of copies of this judgment and the judgment referred to hereinabove by the petitioner, after affording an opportunity of being heard, if so desired. 5. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 21st April, 2011 (virender)