IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 5480 of 2008. Decided on: 9.11.2010. __________________________________________________ Shivneet Kaushal … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : None despite actual date notice to the petitioner and his learned counsel for 18.10.2010. For respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy.A.G. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. (Oral). The petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs: “(i). The difference of pay and allowances for the suspension period from 27.8.1982 to 19.7.1986 be ordered to be released forthwith alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the due date till the payment thereof; (ii). The period of suspension, that is, 27.8.1982 to 19.7.1986 because of pending criminal case, be regularised and treated as period spent on duty; (iii). Confirming the applicant from July 1980 after the applicant has successfully completed his probation period against a substantive vacancy; (iv). Annual increments due since July 1978 and wrongly withheld till date, be ordered to be granted to the applicant forthwith and the arrears of pay as a 2 consequence thereof be also ordered to be released to the applicant along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum; (v) The pay of the applicant be revised as Junior Engineer w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and resultant arrears of pay and allowances may also be ordered to be released alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum till the payment is made; and (vi) The proficiency increment due to the applicant be also ordered to be granted to him from the due date and arrears resulting thereof be ordered to be released forthwith.” 2. In the reply, in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the preliminary submissions and paragraph 6 (iv) on merits, the respondents have taken the following stand:- Preliminary submissions: “1. That the applicant was initially engaged as Junior Engineer in the respondent Deptt. On 22.7.78 and was posted in IPH Division Dharamshala (Kangra). Thereafter, on 17.6.81 he was transferred to Hamirpur Circle where he joined on 23.6.81. the applicant was placed under suspension vide Superintending Engineer, 8th Circle, Hamairpur letter No. SE-VIII-U/T-13591-95 dated 27.8.82 due to his alleged involvement in a criminal case F.I.R. No. 5/82 titled as State Vs. Mehar singh and others in which he was one of the co-accused. The said suspension was revoked on 19.7.86 vide Annexure A-1 to O.A. conditionally by the respondent-State. The said case was decided by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala on 24.6.87 by discharging the applicant. Against this order the State of H.P. filed revision in the Hon’ble High Court which was also dismissed. Against this dismissal the State 3 of H.P. filed S.L.P. before the Hon’ble Apex Court which was also dismissed on 28.11.94. The applicant during this very relevant period remained posted in different stations which are as follows: Sr.No. Period of posting Place of posting. 1. 27.7.78 to 12.6.81 IPH Divn.Dharamshala 2. 23.6.81 to 19.8.86 Hamirpur Circle 3. 22.8.86 to 14.11.88 Kumarsain Division 4. 22.11.88 to 12.2.96 Nirmand Division 5. 13.2.96 to 17.8.96 Under suspension 6. 19.8.86 to till date Dalhousie Division. From the above, it is seen that the applicant during the pendency of criminal case remained posted at various stations and his service record was also sent to the different competent authorities for the needful. During the year 1996 he was transferred to Theog Division but the applicant did not join at Theog Division. Accordingly, he was placed under suspension on 30.5.96 and also charge-sheeted under Rule 14 and Executive Engineer Chamba Division was also appointed enquiry officer to hold enquiry for the alleged mis-conduct. The said enquiry is still pending before the enquiry officer and no enquiry report has yet been received from the Enquiry Officer by the office of replying respondent till the filing of this reply. However, the office of replying respondent as well as the remaining respondents are making every sincere efforts to get this enquiry against the applicant completed so that his every reasonable and legitimate dues could be released to the applicant immediately. 2. That after the acquittal/discharge of the applicant from the court of Ld. Sessions Judge, Dharamshala and till its final verdict in S.L.P. from the Hon’ble Apex Court the applicant never represented 4 to the Deptt. to settle his claim and the Deptt. in view of the pendency of the above case in Hon’ble High Court, thereafter, in the Hon’ble Apex Court bonafidely believed that during its decision no consequential relief has to be given to the applicant. Further more the service record of the applicant had served from time to time and all out efforts are being made to get the said located/completed so that his claim could be settled but in the mean while in the year 1996 for the defiance to Govt. order applicant was charge sheeted. Accordingly, disciplinary action was initiated against him which enquiry is still pending with the Enquiry Officer i.e. Executive Engineer Chamba and therefore during its final decision the case of the applicant could not be finalized. However, the service record of the applicant has now been located and brought on 18.3.98 through special messenger from Theog Division and is going to be completed and finalized very shortly on priority basis. Reply on merits: “6 (iv). In reply to this sub para it is submitted that no doubt the S.L.P. so preferred by the respondent-State in the Hon’ble Apex Court was dismissed on 28.11.94 and upon this dismissal the applicant represented to the respondent Deptt. in the year 1995 but his case could not be settled immediately as during the relevant preceding period he remained posted at different stations and in the meanwhile when this action was awaited settlement upon the representation of the applicant he was transferred from Nirmand to Theog Divn. In Feb., 1996 but the applicant evaded the said transfer and accordingly he was placed under rule 14 of the CCS & CCA Rules, 1965 which is still pending enquiry with the Executive Engineer Chamba who has been appointed as Enquiry Officer Chamba. More over just 5 to settle the claim of the applicant as soon as possible the replying respondent office wrote to the respective Superintending Engineer’s and other offices and also deputed officials from the office of Executive Engineer Dalhousie Division to personally locate and bring the service record of the applicant just to settle the pending case of the applicant in time which was ultimately located at Theog Division on 18.3.98. Now every sincere efforts are being made to settle the case of the applicant as soon as possible. From the above it is clearly established that the applicant slept over his right till 4th of December, 1995, therefore, he is not entitled for compensation as claimed for.” 3. In view of the above reply, in case the petitioner has any grievance surviving with regard to the factual and legal aspect of the matter, it will be open to him to approach the respondents along with copy of this judgment within one month from today, in which case the matter will be duly considered and finally decided by the respondents within another three months. 4. In view of the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. November 9, 2010. (cr)