IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: LPA. No. 29 of 2007. Date of Decision : December 7, 2009. Chairman-cum-Managing Director and others. Appellants. Versus Sh.Kedar Singh and another. Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice, R.B.Misra, Acting Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No. For the appellants : Mr. K.D.Sood, Advocate. For the respondent-1 : Mr. A.K.Gupta, Advocate, For Respondent-2. Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General. R. B.Misra,Acting Chief Justice(Oral). Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 30th April, 2007 passed in CWP.No. 183 of 2005, whereby learned Single Judge has been pleased to direct the appellants herein to release the salary of the writ-petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-7150 with arrears along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum with cost of Rs.3,000/-. 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 It appears that the writ-petitioner was appointed as Manager at Guma Mines vide order dated 4th November, 2003 which reads as follows: “Shri Kedar Singh, Mines Foreman, Mandi Unit is hereby appointed as Manager at Guma Mines with immediate effect. This issues with the approval of the competent authority.” The writ-petitioner’s appointment was made as Manager at Guma Mines after the prior approval having been granted by the competent authority. Since the petitioner’s salary as Manager was not paid to him, in those circumstances, the writ petitioner has approached this Court by way of writ petition, after having served a legal notice dated 17th September, 2004 to the authorities. The learned Single Judge heard both the parties and after perusal of the documents on record has noted that the writ-petitioner was appointed as Manager vide order dated 4th November, 2003 after prior approval of Competent Authority. Learned Single Judge has also noted that vide letter dated 9th October, 2003, Deputy Director of Mines Safety had written to the Agent, Guma and Darang Salt Mine, indicating existence of the following deficiencies in the letter dated 18th September, 2003: “1. The application has not been made in proper performa. 2. Guma Salt Mine is big mine and is presently under production and hence Shri Kedar Singh will not have any assistance of statutory qualified persons at least a foreman certificate holder if he is permitted to work as Manager of this mine”. 3 As has been noted by the learned Single Judge that no mention of any kind was made in the above letter dated 18th September, 2003 that the writ-petitioner was not qualified. The learned Single Judge has also noted that the writ-petitioner was not to be provided any assistance of statutory qualified person at- least a foreman certificate holder if he was allowed to work as Manager at Guma Mines. The other communication dated 7th October, 2003 was issued after the inspection of Guma Mines by Mr.S.M.Suthar, Deputy Director Mines Safety, Ghaziabad Region, Ghaziabad on 4.8.2003 indicating that Guma Mines were started after removing all contraventions as mentioned. The writ petitioner was transferred from Guma Salt Mines to Darang Salt Mines w.e.f. 20th March, 2004 vide office order dated 18th March, 2004. The learned Single Judge has arrived at a finding that since the writ-petitioner was appointed as Manager at Guma Salt Mine vide order dated 4th November, 2003, as such without rectification of the said order or without withdrawing the said order, the writ-petitioner is entitled to be paid the salary to the post of ‘Manager’ on which he was appointed. The learned Single Judge has also observed that the withdrawal of nomenclature of the writ-petitioner from the post of Manager to the post of Foreman could not also be changed without any notice or proper legal course. During hearing of the present appeal, no material has been placed before us to indicate that the order of 4 appointment dated 4th November, 2003 was not made after the prior approval of the Competent Authority or at any stage the said order was ever withdrawn. Our attention was drawn only to the contents of para-2 of the reply dated 29th April, 2007 filed on behalf of the present appellants, wherein it was indicated that the writ-petitioner is simply a Manager Permit Holder and under the Rules, the Manager Permit Holders can be appointed as Manager of Mine provided Director Mines Safety approves his appointment. After issuance of the order and before handing over the charge, the matter was referred to the Director Mines Safety for approval of the appointment of the writ-petitioner. However, since the Director Mines Safety vide letter dated 9th October, 2003 did not consider the proposal of the authorities, as such, the writ-petitioner was not given the charge of Mines Manager of Guma Mines. As such, the demand of pay scale which the existing Mines Manager having qualification of BE (Mines) and Ist Class Manager Certificate is getting, is not to be given to the writ-petitioner. In our respectful consideration, in above contentions nothing has been mentioned about the withdrawal of the appointment order dated 4.11.2003 of writ petitioner. During the course of the hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants has, however, invited our attention that the writ petition was not maintainable before the High Court and submission to this effect was made by the appellants herein in their reply/para-1 of writ-petition before 5 learned Single Judge. According to the appellants it was mentioned in para-1 that the writ petitioner being a workman was to agitate his grievance before the Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal in reference to the Industrial Disputes Act. In our respectful consideration though a reference in para-1 of the reply was made by the appellants, but, however, there appears to be no mention in the impugned order. As such this aspect shall be treated to have not been argued before the learned Single Judge as such requires no occasion to consider the same at this stage. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any occasion to interfere with the impugned order dated 30.4.2007, therefore, the appeal is dismissed. (R.B.Misra), Acting Chief Justice. (Kuldip Singh), Judge. December 7, 2009(R)