KUSUM LATA Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that petitioners were appointed as Manager-cum-Chemists, Quality Control Inspector and Fruit Preservation Assistants with effect from 23.3.1981, 15.3.1986, 30.10.1987 and 26.2.1990, respectively. Petitioners were recruited as per Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Class 3 (Executive Section) Service (Recruitment and Promotion and Certain Conditions of Service) Rules, 1973. Respondent-State issued notification dated 24.4.1993 whereby the pay scale of Class 3, 2 and 1 officers/services were revised on Punjab Pattern with effect from 1.1.1991. The State Government has adopted three tier pay scales, Rs. 2200-4000 at the time of entry into service, Rs. 3000-4500 after completion of 8 years service and Rs. 3700-5300 after 18 years of service. Certain posts in Class 3 and (Gazetted) were notified as Class-I vide notification dated 31.1.1994. Vide notification dated 2.3.1995 posts at Sr. Nos. 6 to 11 were added after Sr. No. 5 below "Class-3 Gazetted Services" notified vide notification dated 24.4.1993. State Government has taken a conscious decision vide notification dated 6.11.1996 regarding placement of posts in common cadre of Class-I (Gazetted) (Non-Ministerial Service) in the Department of Horticulture. The pay scales were further revised in the respondent-department of various categories with effect from 1.1.1996 vide notification 31.5.2001. However, in supersession of this notification, new notification was issued on 8.2.2005 whereby pay scales were revised with effect from 1.1.1996 and posts, including the posts held by the petitioners, were merged into a single Class-I cadre. Thereafter State Government framed Recruitment and Promotion Rules (Annexure P-24) called "Himachal Pradesh Horticultural Services Class-1 (Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2007". Petitioners filed CWP No. 2093/2008 for the redressal of their grievance, which was disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to make representation to the competent authority. Petitioners made representation; however, the same was rejected by the Principal Secretary (Horticulture) on 29.11.2008. Thereafter petitioners approached this Court by way of CWP No. 3048/2008, which was permitted to be withdrawn on 15.6.2009 with liberty reserved to the petitioners to file fresh petition.

(2.) Mr. S.R. Sharma has strenuously argued that the posts held by his clients were included in the notification dated 24.4.1993 and his clients are entitled to all the benefits on the basis of same. He then contended that after constituting single Class-1 cadre on the basis of the Himachal Pradesh Horticultural Services Class-1 (Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2007, the promotional avenues of his clients have been blocked by changing the minimum essential qualifications. He lastly contended that his clients are entitled to benefits of seniority etc. with effect from their initial date of appointment and the respondents may be directed to finalize the tentative seniority list issued on 16.1.2006.

(3.) Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the categories of the petitioners were never included in Annexure P-4 dated 24.4.1993. According to him, petitioners were placed, as per Annexure P-7 dated 2.3.1995, in Class-Ill Gazetted Services. He then contended that it is the prerogative of the State Government to frame Recruitment and Promotion Rules and prescribe minimum essential qualifications etc. According to him, the seniority to the petitioners is in accordance with law after the decision was taken to constitute one single Class-I cadre.