IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 11577 of 2008 Date of decision: 07.04.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Kurum Dutt & others. .....Petitioners. Versus The State of H.P. & another. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj and Mr. Amit Singh Chandel, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. AG, for respondent No. 1. Mr. G.D. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7(i) and (ii): “ i) That the provision of notification dated 31.5.2001 (Annexure A-7) issued by the respondent No.1 vide which the post of Junior Assistants have been declared to be filled up by placement to the extent of 100% out of the Clerks and provision of clarificatory instructions issued vide letter dated 3.11.2001 (Annexure A-8) may kindly be declared illegal, ultra virus, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, unconstitutional and unsustainable in the eyes of law. ii) The office order dated 27.9.2001 (Annexure A-6) and order dated 31.1.2002/27.2.2002 (Annexure A-9) issued by the respondent No.2 in pursuance of the notification dated 31.5.2001 (Annexure A-7) and clarificatory instructions dated 3.11.2001 (Annexure A-8) may kindly be quashed.” 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... 2. In reply on behalf of respondent No.2, the following stand has been taken by way of preliminary submission vide paras 1 and 2 and on merits vide para 6(xvi) to (xvi) (a) to (e): Preliminary submissions: “1. That the applicant has filed the present application beyond the period of limitation as described under Section 21 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, hence deserves to be dismissed summarily. 2. That the replying respondent has followed the Notification of respondent No. 1 and accordingly applicants have been placed to the post of Junior Assistant, Hence the applicants have got no cause of action against replying/answering respondent. On merits: 6(xvi) That in pursuance to the notification dated 31.5.2001 and clarificatory instructions dated 3.11.2001 Annexure A-7 and A-8 issued by respondent No. 1 the replying respondent issued office order dated 27.9.2001 Annexure A-6 vide which the applicants have been shown placed as Junior Assistant in the revised pay scale of Rs. 4400-7000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and thereafter their pay has been fixed vide office order dated 31.1.2002/27.2.2002 Annexure A-9. It is pertinent to submit here that vide notification dated 31.5.2001/27.2.2002 Annexure A-9. It is pertinent to submit here that vide notification dated 31.5.2001 the post of Junior Assistant is to be filled by placement instead of by promotion, therefore, the benefit of F.R. 22 will not be given to the applicants on fixation. (xvi)(a) That the replying respondent board has acted as per the notification dated 31.5.2001 and clarificatory instructions dated 3.11.2001 issued by the respondent No. 1 the state of H.P. Hence, the orders are neither illegal, arbitrary, contrary, invalid, unconstitutional nor violative of principles of natural justice and unsustainable in the eyes of law. (b) That the promotions of the applicants are subject to the notification of the State of H.P. and as State of H.P. has amended H.P. Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules – 1998 as such there is no need of any notice or opportunity being granted to the applicants. ...3... (c) That the contents of the para are incorrect, false and wrong. The promotion of the applicants have been withdrawn and applicants were only placed as Junior Assistant in pursuance to the notification of H.P. Govt. dated 31.5.2001 Annexure A-7. The placement is not going to effect the status of the applicants and also not going to effect the seniority. As such the applicants are not going to suffer any irreparable loss. (d) That the respondent board has placed the applicants Junior Assistant in pursuance to the notification issued by the respondent No. 1 dated 31.5.2001 Annexure A-7 clarificatory instructions issue by letter dated 03.11.2001 Annexure -A and no recovery is to be made upto 30.5.2001. Their pay has been fixed vide office order 31.1.2002/27.2.2002 Annexure A-9. (e) The contents of this para are wrong, incorrect and hence denied. As already submitted vide letter dated 3.11.2001 Annexure A-8 H.P. govt. has not proposed to effect recoveries from Salary/Pay of the applicants upto 30.5.2001. As already submitted as per the Notification dated 31.5.2001 the post of Junior Assistant is to be filled by placement and not by promotion, therefore the benefit of F.R. 22(1) will not be given.” 3. There is no reply on behalf of respondent No. 1. However, at the time of hearing the learned Deputy Advocate General has adopted the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 2. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits at the very outset that the case of the petitioners is covered under judgment dated 30th November, 2010, rendered by this Court in CWP(T) No. 8451 of 2008, titled Ram Lal Sharma and others vs. State of H.P and another. 5. In view of the above, if on facts, the case of the petitioners is covered under the judgment referred to hereinabove, in CWP (T) No.8451 of 2008, and they are similarly situate, they shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and the benefit of ...4... the said judgment shall be extended to them within three months from the date of production of copies of this judgment and the judgment referred to hereinabove by the petitioners. 6. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 7th April, 2011 (virender)