IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 12488 of 2008. Decided on: April 28, 2011. Parkash Chand. Vrs. HRTC & ors.. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioner: Mr. J.P. Upadhyay, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed mainly with the following prayer: “i) That the impugned order No. Hippani/Dharam/Stha/Nimi- 710/2004/-2862 dated 30-07-2004 (which is already placed at annexure A/1) is illegal, arbitrary, malafide and wholly beyond jurisdiction and competence and is not sustainable in the eye of law and should be declared null and void and accordingly set aside and quashed.” 2. In the reply at preliminary submissions, it is submitted as follows:- “That it is a matter of fact as well as directions of the Finance Department formulated vide letter no. FIN(PR)B/51/98 dated 15- 12-98, to the Govt of H.P. that a proficiency setup shall be granted to such an employee who have completed 8 years/16years and 24 years continuous service in a cadre in a same post without any interrupted period of service. Copy of letter is annexed as annexure R-I. That the applicant was appointed as conductor with the respondent corporation wef 20-12-1978 and later on he was designated as Clerk cum Typist and consequent upon his option for retirement under voluntary retirement scheme the applicant retired from services wef 31-1-2003. That the applicant during his service tenure after a service of 8 years was allowed proficiency 2 setup and the applicant was given increment to the higher pay scale after completion of 16 years of service in the cadre as well in time, however it is pertinent to mention that the applicant had availed leave without prior permission and due sanction from the authorities concerned wef 29-1-1981 to 1-3-1981, thus the period of absence was regulated as extra ordinary leave by the authorities concerned. The period of absence from the job was considered as extra ordinary leave by the authorities concerned thus the interrupted/un-qualified period was not taken into account as per the directions of the Finance Department. That when the case of the applicant was considered for allowing the Higher pay scale under the Career progression scheme was considered the increment was ordered to be withdrawn as the applicant had availed leave without prior permission and due sanction from the authorities concerned wef 29-1-1981 to 1-3-1981 and the same was done in accordance with the service rules.” 3. There is no rejoinder. In view of the stand taken in the reply, as above, in case the petitioner still any grievance left, he may approach the first respondent, in which case the matter will be duly considered by the first respondent after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and appropriate orders in accordance with law will be passed within a period of four months from the date of production of the copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition, by the petitioner before the first respondent. 4. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application (s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. April 28, 2011. ( Justice V.K.Ahuja ), (karan/vs) Judge.