HEM CHAND Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure P-5, order, whereby the petitioner has been directed to go back to his original station until a decision is taken by respondent No. 3, as per Annexure P-4, judgment of this court. It is also seen from Annexure P-5 that the said arrangement is made only to avoid surplus arrangement, as otherwise it will lead to situation where two persons would be working against the same post. According to the petitioner he had already joined duty on 1.6.2010. But, it is also submitted that respondent No. 4 has not been relieved.

(2.) Since there is only one post, without duly relieving the incumbent, the petitioner could not have been permitted to join duty. In case any irregularity has been committed by the Controlling Authority, that Controlling Authority should be responsible for the salary of one of the two persons, working in the same post for the said period. Be that, as it may. Since there is already a direction in Annexure P-4 that the representation of the 4th respondent therein (the petitioner herein), be also considered, in case the petitioner still wants to make representation, it will be open for him to do so before the 3rd respondent so that respondent No. 3/competent authority would be in a position to take decision, considering the representation of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4.

(3.) According to the petitioner, he is to retire in around two years. It will be open to the petitioner to also point out this aspect before the 3rd respondent and also to point out the place(s) where the petitioner can be accommodated. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.