IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 13326/2008 Decided on:27.4.2011 _____________________________________________ Tanam Singh. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondent No.1 None for respondent No.2. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner was promoted to the post of Record Keeper in the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 19.9.2001. He is now working in the Registry of this Court. Respondent-State had taken a decision to grant secretariat allowance to its employees. The Record Keepers working in the Registry of this Court at the relevant time were also granted the secretariat allowance on the basis of notification dated 8.10.2001. Petitioner was not given the secretariat 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 allowance. He made a representation for the redressal of his grievance. The same was rejected. He filed original application bearing O.A. No. 744/2004 in the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance. O.A. No. 744/2004 was allowed by the Tribunal on 18.5.2005. Operative portion of the judgment dated 18.5.2005 reads thus: “For the reasons aforesaid, we see force in the contention of the applicants. Both the OA Nos. 662/2004 and 744/2004 are accordingly allowed to the extent that a secretariat allowance of Rs. 160/- P.M. shall be made admissible to the posts of Senior Translator and Record Keeper of the Tribunal.” 2. In sequel to the judgment rendered by the Tribunal on 18.5.2005, the petitioner was granted secretariat allowance @ ` 160/- P.M. on 5.7.2005. However, vide office order dated 29.3.2006, payment of secretariat allowance was stopped to the petitioner by invoking rule 9 of Rules of Business of Government of Himachal Pradesh. 3. Mrs. Ranjana Parmar has strenuously argued that no notice has been issued to the petitioner before the decision was taken to stop the secretariat allowance, which was being paid to the petitioner in sequel to judgment dated 18.5.2005 vide order dated 5.7.2005. She further contended that the judgment rendered by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 744/2004 was 3 not assailed by the respondent-State. In other words, her submission is that the judgment rendered by the Tribunal has attained finality. She further contended that no review was filed. 4. Mr. Vikas Rathore has justified the issuance of Annexure A-3. According to him, as per rule 34 of the Rules of Business of Government of Himachal Pradesh, Finance Department was not consulted before the issuance of order dated 5.7.2005. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 6. Petitioner has been held entitled to secretariat allowance on the basis of judgment rendered by the Tribunal on 18.5.2005 in O.A. No. 744/2004. The operative portion of the judgment has already been quoted hereinabove. Petitioner was granted secretariat allowance @ ` 160/- as per office order dated 5.7.2005. Respondent-State has stopped the payment of secretariat allowance on 5.7.2005. Admittedly, petitioner has not been issued any show cause notice before the issuance of impugned order dated 29.3.2006 (Annexure A-3). Petitioner has suffered civil and evil consequences since his pay was reduced. It was necessary for the respondent-State to issue show cause notice to the 4 petitioner before the decision was taken to his detriment by reducing his salary. Thus, there is violation of principles of natural justice. 7. The decision of the respondents to issue Annexure A-3 dated 29.3.2006 is surely and purely arbitrary. It violates provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner has been held entitled to secretariat allowance on the basis of judgment dated 18.5.2005. Respondent-State has not preferred any appeal, as submitted by Mrs. Ranjana Parmar against the judgment dated 18.5.2005 rendered in O.A. No. 744/2004. In case the respondent-State was aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.5.2005, it ought to have either filed the appeal or review petition in the appropriate court of law. Rather, in this case, respondents have committed contempt by issuing Annexure A-3 dated 29.3.2006. The judgments rendered by the competent courts of law, including Tribunal, cannot be set to naught in this manner. 8. According, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-3 dated 29.3.2006 is quashed and set aside. Annexure A-2 dated 5.7.2005 is restored. Respondents are directed to pay arrears to the petitioner alongwith interest @ 5 7% per annum, within a period of 8 weeks, from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. ( Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 27.4.2011 *awasthi*