IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 4676 of 2008 Date of Decision: 1.10.2009. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kashmir Chand ……….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Others ………..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No. For the petitioner ………Mrs Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents ………Mr R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl.A.G. with Mr. J.S. Guleria, Asstt.A.G. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). The petitioner had filed OA No. 2084 of 1997 in the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal which was abolished and the cases of the erstwhile Tribunal were transferred to this Court and after transfer OA No. 2084 of 1997 has been registered as CWP (T) 4676 of 2008. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was appointed as Tracer and he was promoted on 28.2.1989 as Draughtsman and was confirmed as such on 1.6.1995. The petitioner had earned two increments as Draughtsman out of which first increment was earned by him on 20.3.1990. On 27.5.1991, respondents had issued notification, notifying that promoted Draughtsman will be eligible to earn increments only on putting 12 years service as Draughtsman. The Draughtsmen who were recruited directly were made eligible to earn increments on putting one year service vide office order dated 8.8.1991. It is the case of the petitioner that the promoted Draughtsmen have been -------------------------------------------------------------- Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. -2- discriminated for earning increments. The promoted Draughtsmen are entitled to equal treatment which has been given to directly recruited Draughtsmen for earning increments. It has been prayed that respondents may be directed not to make discrimination between the promoted Draughtsman and directly recruited Draughtsman, the respondents may be directed to pay the arrears due to the petitioner for not giving him increments. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the petitioner is totally covered by judgment rendered by the erstwhile Tribunal in OA No. 1099 of 1993 decided on 5.4.2008. 3. In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner and Senior Addl. Advocate General representing the respondents at the time of hearing of the petition, it is not necessary to give in detail the reply filed by the respondents. The Senior Addl. Advocate General has not denied the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that case of the petitioner is totally covered by the judgment dated 5.4.2008 of erstwhile Tribunal so far the case of the petitioner for increments is concerned. 4. In judgment dated 5.4.2008 the following condition in Annexure-A/7 for earning increments was considered by the Tribunal:- “A Junior Draughtsman shall be eligible for promotion as Draughtsman in the scale of Rs 1800-3200 after a minimum period of twelve years of service as such. Junior Draughtsman already promoted as Draughtsman before putting in twelve years of service in the lower scale will start in the scale of Rs. 1800-3200/- at the minimum of Rs. 1800/- and shall be entitled to get increments only after they have completed the aforementioned minimum eligibility period of twelve years of service.” 5. The same condition was put vide notification dated 27.5.1991 which is at page 14 of the paper book. The Tribunal quashed Annexure-A/7 and directed the respondents in that case to grant annual increment to the petitioner on completion of one year service with consequential benefits i.e. -3- subsequent annual increment and arrears thereof within two months. Therefore, in view of the joint stand of the learned counsel for the parties that the present case is covered by judgment dated 5.4.2008 of the erstwhile Tribunal, the petition is allowed. The aforesaid condition laid in the notification dated 27.5.1991 is quashed and the petitioner is held entitled to increment on completion of one year service as Draughtsman with consequential benefits i.e. the subsequent annual increments and arrears thereof which shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today. The petition stands disposed of. (Kuldip Singh) Judge. October 1,2009. (KC)