SUNDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCORDING to Mr. K. B. Khajuria, learned counsel for the petitioner the matter in issue is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in Dalip Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others, CWP(T) No. 14148 of 2008, decided on 24.8.2010, copy of which is taken on record.

(2.) IN the instant petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-

(3.) OBVIOUSLY the stand taken by the respondents is contrary to the terms and conditions of the office order dated 25.7.2002. It is not the case of the respondents that the staff from the surplus pool had been deployed or that petitioner's work was not found to be satisfactory. Petitioner's appointment can also not be said to be irregular as no action whatsoever was taken in this regard. In fact the respondents have admitted that the work and conduct of the petitioner has been satisfactory. Hence petitioner is entitled to the allowances at such rates as are admissible to other employees of his category in the organisation. There is no dispute that petitioner completed one year of his service in the month of July, 2003. Hence the petition needs to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. The respondents are directed to take consequential action of making payment to the petitioner w.e.f. 25.7.2003. Respondents are directed to take all consequential action within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which, thereafter petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum." 4. In the instant case also terms of appointment of the petitioner are akin to that of Dalip Kumar (supra). Inspite of petitioner's representation Government has not taken any decision in the matter. 5. Be that as it may be, it is not the case of the respondent that staff from the surplus pool had been deployed or that petitioner's work was not found to be satisfactory. Petitioner's appointment also cannot be said to be irregular as no action whatsoever was taken in this regard. In fact the respondents have admitted that petitioner's work and conduct has been satisfactory. Hence petitioner is entitled to allowances at such rates as are admissible to other employees similar to his category in the organisation. It is not in dispute that petitioner has completed one year of service in the month of March, 2003. Hence petition needs to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. Directions issued in Dalip Kumar (supra) shall mutatis mutandis apply to the instant case also. The respondents are directed to take consequential action of making payment to the petitioner w.e.f. March 2003. Consequential action be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which, thereafter petitioner shall be entitled to interest @9% per annum. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of.