IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 466 of 2008. Decided on: 26.04.2011. ___________________________________________ Kamla Gupta. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): Petitioner was appointed as J.B.T. Teacher in the respondent-department on 27th August, 1966. She was promoted to the post of Central Head Teacher on 5th May, 2001 in the pay scale of ` 5480-8925. She joined her duties on 17th May, 2001 as Central Head Teacher. She was subsequently promoted as Block Primary Education Officer on 23rd February, 2005. She retired from service on 28th 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - February, 2006. After retirement she came to know that one Narbada Gupta, who was junior to her and was promoted after her, was getting higher pension. She made a representation for the redressal of her grievance to bring her pension at par with Narbada Gupta. Same was rejected by the Deputy Director of Education (Elementary), Mandi on 1.10.2007. 2. Mr. M.L. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the petitioner was entitled to get one increment with effect from January, 2002 after her promotion to the post of Central Head Teacher vide letter dated 5th May, 2001. He then argued that his client in fact had exercised the option on 28th May, 2001 under F.R. 22(A)1. He finally contended that the pension of the petitioner was to be fixed at ` 10,640/- instead of ` 10,300/-. 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that since the petitioner has not exercised the option within one month after she joined as Central Head Teacher, she is not entitled to one increment. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner has been promoted as Central Head Teacher on 5th May, 2001. She had joined her duties on 17th May, 2001. According to the averments contained in the - 3 - petition, she has exercised her option under F.R. 22(A)1 that her case was required to be considered for the benefit of one increment with effect from January, 2002. Respondents have not chosen to file any reply. Notice in this petition initially was issued on 14th March, 2008 by the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and thereafter the State was granted two opportunities to file the reply on 9th March, 2010 and 14th June, 2010 by this Court. 6. Petitioner has made specific averment that one Smt. Narbada Gupta, who was Junior to her and was also promoted after the petitioner, has been given higher pension. This aspect of the matter has also been overlooked by the respondents while rejecting the representation made by the petitioner on 1.10.2007. Assuming hypothetically that the petitioner did not exercise her option within one month after the joining on higher post, even in that eventuality also, the case of the petitioner was required to be considered by giving her one more opportunity to give option for fixation of her pay. The respondents have dealt with the matter in a very mechanical manner without taking into consideration that the petitioner joined the department in 1966 and retired on 28th February, 2006, after serving the department for about 40 years. The action of the respondents of not considering her case for release of additional increment with effect from - 4 - January, 2002 is illegal and arbitrary. It can safely be presumed that since the respondents have nothing to say in the matter, they have not chosen to file the reply. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussion made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-2, dated 1.10.2007 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release one additional increment to the petitioner with effect from January, 2002 on the basis of option exercised by her on 28th May, 2002 and consequently, her pension shall also be revised from the due date. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. April 26, 2011. (sck).