Needful to be done within the Stipulated Time frame: High court of Shimla

 Hig h C o urt of H.P on 20 03 HCHP IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESHSHIMLA LPA No. 1409Date of Decision: 19.3.2021 Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board through itsSecretary and another. …..Appellants. VersusSh. Govind Ram Sharma ....Respondent.Coram:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur Judge.The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma Judge.Whether approved for reporting For the Appellants:Mr. Vinay Kuthiala Senior Advocatewith Mr. Diwan Negi Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Ashwani K. Gupta Advocate. _______Per Sandeep Sharma No. 51308titled as Kali RamSharma Vs. The HPSEB through its Secretary and another whereby writpetition having been filed by the respondent came to be disposed of inthe following terms: “Learned counsel for the parties state that the matter issquarely covered by a decision rendered by the Apex Courtin Civil Appeal No. 32506 titled as Commissioner andSecretary to Govt. of Haryana and others versus Ram SarupGanda and others decided on 2.8.2006S.C.T.476].As such as prayed for by the learned counsel for the partiespetitioner is entitled for the time bound promotional scale Hig h C o urt of H.P on 20 03 HCHP after completion of 9 and 16 years of service with allincidental benefits in the grade of Junior Engineer. As statedby Mr. Shashi Shirshoo learned counsel for the respondents action for pay fixation and consequential benefits shall betaken within a period of three months from today. It isclarified that if the needful is not done within the said periodpetitioner shall be entitled to interest @9% thereafter.Petition is disposed of.”2.Precise ground as has been raised in the instant appeal onbehalf of the appellants is that since case at hand was not covered withthe judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3250 of2006 titled as Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. of Haryana andothers Versus Ram Sarup Ganda and others decided on 2.8.2006 therewas no occasion if any for the learned Single Judge to issue direction tothe appellants to accord benefit in favour of the respondent in terms ofaforesaid judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court.3.However having heard learned counsel for the parties andperused the material available on record vis a vis reasoning assigned inthe impugned order this Court finds no merit in the aforesaid submissionfor the reasons that there is no positive direction if any issued by theCourt with regard to extension of benefits in terms of judgment renderedby Apex Court rather judgment clearly reveals that counsel representingrespondent after having heard submission made by learned counsel forthe appellants agreed for release of consequential benefits and as suchCourt just to ensure timely compliance ordered that if needful is not donewithin the said period respondent would be entitled to 9% interest.4. It also emerge from the judgment passed by learned SingleJudge that no specific findings qua applicability of the aforesaid judgmentpassed by the Apex Court in the case of appellants ever came to be…2… Hig h C o urt of H.P on 20 03 HCHP rendered on record and as such there appears to be no merit in thepresent appeal and accordingly deserves outright rejection. Though inthe grounds of appeal it has been stated by learned counselrepresenting appellants that at the time of passing of judgment dated14.5.2009 counsel representing appellants had no instructions from thedepartment to give concession but even aforesaid plea deservesrejection being devoid of merit for the reasons that bare perusal of thejudgment nowhere suggest that learned counsel representing appellantsgave concession if any rather he on the basis of prayer made by thepetitioner that his case is squarely covered by the judgment supra assured this Court that needful shall be done within the stipulated time. 5.Consequently in view of the above there is no merit in theappeal and the same is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Pendingapplication(s) if any also stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Judge Judge19 th March 2021 …3… 

Summary: To ensure timely compliance ordered if needful is not done within the said period, respondent would be entitled to 9% interest and it has no specific findings qua applicability. This honorable judgement was passed by High Court of Shimla in the case of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board through its Secretary and another v. Sh. Govind Ram Sharma [LPA No. 140 of 2009] by The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma. The Appeal was filed to impugned judgment passed in the case titled as Kali Ram Sharma Vs. The HPSEB, whereby writ petition had been filed by the respondent came to be disposed of. The ground as had been raised on behalf of the appellants is that since case at hand was not covered with the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3250 of 2006, titled as Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. of Haryana and others Versus Ram Sarup Ganda and others, decided on 2.8.2006. This Court find no merit in the aforesaid submission for the reasons that there is no positive direction, if any, issued by the Court with regard to extension of benefits in terms of judgment rendered by Apex Court, rather judgment clearly reveals that counsel representing respondent after having heard submission made by learned counsel for the appellants agreed for release of consequential benefits and as such Court just to ensure timely compliance ordered that if needful is not done within the said period, respondent would be entitled to 9% interest.  It also emerged from the judgment that no specific findings qua applicability of the aforesaid judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of appellants ever came to be rendered on record and as such there appears to be no merit in the present appeal and accordingly deserves outright rejection. The court was of the view that, ‘Though in the grounds of appeal, it has been stated by learned counsel representing appellants that at the time of passing of judgment dated 14.5.2009 counsel representing appellants had no instructions from the department to give concession but even aforesaid plea deserves rejection being devoid of merit for the reasons that bare perusal of the judgment nowhere suggest that learned counsel representing appellants gave concession, if any, rather he on the basis of prayer made by the petitioner that his case is squarely covered by the judgment, supra, assured this Court that needful shall be done within the stipulated time.’