IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 8749 of 2008. Decided on: 19.7.2010. __________________________________________________ Shri Kedar Singh Chauhan … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy.A.G. ___________________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). By filing the present petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction against the respondents to implement the orders passed by the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (since abolished) in OA Nos. 736 of 1996, 1385 of 1996 and 45 of 1999 decided on 15.12.2000, vide Annexures A-1 to A-3 on the averments that the respondents have not granted the retiral benefits admissible to him in terms of the aforesaid orders, dated 15.12.2000 of the erstwhile Tribunal. It is further averred that the petitioner was also held entitled to interest at the rate of 10% per annum after the lapse of three months from the date of order, that is, 15.12.2000. Further case of the petitioner is that he has been denied his rightful fixation of pay by application of F.R. 22 (a) (I) (a) on his ex post facto promotion as Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies from July 1997 on account of the aforesaid decisions rendered by the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 Tribunal. Such benefit has been extended in favour of persons junior to him who were also promoted as Assistant Registrar in July 1997, that is, during the pendency of the aforesaid matters before the Tribunal. 2. The claim set up by the petitioner is refuted on behalf of the respondents on the following averments set up, vide para 3 of reply filed on their behalf: “That the contention of the applicant that the respondents have not implemented the judgments passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal in O.As. No. 736/1996, 1385/1996 and 45/1999 on 15.12.2000 are denied. The respondents have fully implemented the judgments of this Hon’ble Tribunal and all consequential benefits have since been released to the applicant. It may be submitted that the copies of the judgments dated 15.12.2K were supplied by the applicant to the office of the replying respondent on 4.1.2001 and thereafter, steps were taken by the replying respondent to faithfully implement the orders of this Hon’ble Tribunal. The amount of pension/commutation value of pension was remitted to the applicant through the concerned Treasury Officer. However, the amount of gratuity was disbursed to the applicant through bank draft on 23.3.2001 by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jubbal. It is clear that all claims were settled between the period 4.1.2001 to 23.3.2001 i.e. with in 78 days from the receipt of the copies of the judgments. There was absolutely no intentional delay in the implementation of judgments dated 15.12.2000 delivered by this Hon’ble Tribunal. The financial benefits to the applicant in pay fixation could not be granted due to identical scale of pay of feeder category as well as the promotional post. The State 3 Government vide Notification dated 1.9.98 revised the pay scale to the post of Distt. Inspector/Distt. Audit Officer from existing pay scale of Rs. 6400-10640 to that of Rs. 7000-10980 which was made applicable w.e.f. 1.1.96. The persons who were junior to the applicant were promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies in July, 1997 when the pay scale of feeder category and promotional post were different and they were allowed benefit in pay fixation under F.R. 22 (a) (a) (1) at the time of their promotion in the next pay scale of Rs. 7000-10980. Since the applicant was promoted as Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies on 28.3.2001 in pursuance of the judgments of this Hon’ble Tribunal dated 15.12.2000 when the pay scale of feeder category and the promotional post were the same and it was not possible to fix the pay of the applicant under F.R. 22 (1) (a) (1) keeping in view the provision of F.R. 22 (III) as clarified by the Govt. also. F.R. 22 (III) reads as under: ‘For the purpose of this rule, the appointment shall not be deemed to involve the assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance if the post to which it is made is on the same scale of pay as the post, other than a tenure post, which the Govt. servant holds on a regular basis at the time of his promotion or appointment or on a scale of pay identical therewith’.” 3. A combined and harmonious reading of the stand taken by the respondents would go to show that though all other benefits granted in favour of the petitioner by the Tribunal stood settled between 4.1.2001 to 23.3.2001, that is, within 78 days from the receipt of the copies of the judgment, which period is beyond the permissible period of three months with effect from 15.12.2000 4 expiring on 15.3.2001, only by 8 days, yet the petitioner was not entitled and could not be granted the benefit of F.R. 22 (a) (I) (a) for the reason that whereas the persons junior to him were promoted in July 1997, the petitioner was promoted only on 28.3.2001 when the pay scales in the feeder cadre as also in the promotional post were equal. However, such stand itself is in contradiction and derogation to office order dated 28.3.2001, Annexure A-6, whereby the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Class II (Gazetted) in the pay scale of Rs. 2130-3700 with effect from 10.7.1997 to 31.3.1998 (emphasis supplied). Admittedly, the petitioner had retired from Government service on attaining the age of superannuation on and with effect from 31.3.1998 and as such ex post facto order of promotion was made limited to the period between 10.7.1997 to 31.3.1998. Thus, it is apparent that the petitioner was in fact promoted on 10.7.1997 and not on 28.3.2001, which incidentally is the date of the office order, Annexure A-6, which has been wrongly construed and stated to be the date of promotion of the petitioner. In such situation, the denial of the benefit of F.R. 22 (a) (I) (a) in favour of the petitioner is on the face of it unjustified. 4. In view of the above, the petitioner is held entitled for the grant of benefit of F.R. 22 (a)(I)(a) pursuant to his promotion as Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Class II (Gazetted) in the pay scale of Rs. 2130-3700 with effect from 10.7.1997, vide office order dated 28.3.2001, Annexure A-6 and the respondents are directed to pay the consequential financial benefits to him along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from due date till the date 5 of payment, within three months from today. It goes without saying that pursuant to grant of this benefit, the petitioner shall also be entitled for resultant enhanced pensionary benefits, if any, and the outstanding amount of such benefits shall also carry interest at the same rate and shall be payable within the same time. 5. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. 6. In view of disposal of the main petition, pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of as infructuous. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. July 19, 2010. (cr)