OM PARKASH Vs. COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have prayed for quashing of office order dated 31.12.2001 and a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioners continuity of earlier promotion issued on 1.12.1998 with all consequential benefits. It has also been prayed that petitioners may be allowed protection of their pay as Junior Assistants under F.R. 27 as a measure personal to them. THE further case of the petitioners is that they have challenged the order dated 31.12.2001 whereby the promotion of the petitioners as Junior Assistants in the pay scale of ' 4400 7000 ordered earlier vide office order dated 1.12.1998 has been withdrawn/cancelled wrongly, arbitrarily, unconstitutionally and illegally by respondent No.2. THE petitioners have been merely placed as Junior Assistants in the pay scale of ' 4400 7000 by reducing the pay of the petitioners by two increments all of a sudden without assigning any reason or without following principle of natural justice or calling options of the petitioners.

(2.) THE petition has been contested by the respondents by filing reply in which it has been submitted that the notifications dated 20.1.1998, 1.9.1998 and 31.5.2001 have been issued by the Finance (Pay Regulation) Department to the Government of Himachal Pradesh under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It has been submitted by the respondents that the office has merely complied with the rules/orders. It has been stated that the order dated 31.12.2001 has been issued under the provisions laid down by the Finance Department in its notifications dated 31.5.2001 and 3.11.2001 and the petitioners have not prayed for quashing of these notifications of the Finance Department.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Division Bench judgment in Narain Singh's (supra) is more nearer to the facts of the present case. THE Division Bench in that case has held as follows:-