IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. (T) No. 9413 of 2008. Reserved on: 15.06.2011. Decided on: 23.06.2011. _____________________________________________________ Dr. Umesh Dhiman. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of H.P. and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Petitioner was issued appointment letter to the post of Medical Officer on 30th December, 1996. He was medically examined at Rippon Hospital on 31st December, 1996. He left Shimla to join his duties at Primary Health Centre, Baroh, which was at a distance of 250 Kms.. He joined his duties at Baroh on 02.01.1997. Petitioner was entitled to revision of pay scale on completion of four years service in 2001, however, he was released the pay scale of `10,025-15,100/- vide Annexure A-1, dated 09.05.2002. Petitioner made a representation vide Annexure A-2 that he should have been paid revision of pay scale after a period of four years. The same was rejected by the competent authority on 30th July, 2002 as per the instructions contained in letter dated 23rd June, 2002. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - 2. Mr. Dushyant Dadhwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that rejection of the petitioner’s case on 30th July, 2002 is arbitrary. According to him, the pay of his client should have been revised immediately after completion of four years. 3. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General has strenuously argued that the petitioner was required to complete 12 months’ service in 2001 and since there is shortage of one day, he could not be given revised pay in 2001 and has been given the revised pay scale w.e.f. 02.01.2002 with next date of increment as 01.01.2003. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. It is a case of extreme hardship. Petitioner has been issued appointment letter on 30th December, 1996. He was medically examined at Rippon Hospital on 31st December, 1996. He left Shimla on 1st January, 1996 and joined his duties at Baroh, which is at a distance of 250 kms. from Shimla. It is in these circumstances that he could not join his duties on 31st December, 1996. It is a fit case where the principle of lex non cogit ad impossibilia will apply. Petitioner could not be forced to do the impossible by joining his duties on 31st December, 1996 since he was to be medically examined and had to proceed to join his duties at Primary Health Centre, Baroh, which was at a considerable distance from Shimla. Respondents have taken an unrealistic view of the matter by not condoning the delay of one day to grant the petitioner benefit of pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2001. Petitioner cannot be penalized for shortage of one day in getting - 3 - the revision of pay scale. He has been made to loose the service of 364 days in the process on the basis of interpretation given by the respondents to letter dated 23rd June, 2002. The service rules, instructions etc. have to be read in a reasonable and fair manner and in case there is shortage of few days, the same is required to be condoned in the interest of justice to improve the public service. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, Annexure A-3, dated 30th July, 2002 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to release the pay scale to the petitioner on completion of four years’ service w.e.f. 01.01.2001 after condoning the delay of one day with next increment falling on 01.01.2002, within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge June 23, 2011. (bhupender) - 4 - `