STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. SURI DASS NEGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the State challenging the order dtd. 22/9/2016 passed by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the respondents Suri Dass Negi and Ajit Kumar Bhardwaj alongwith twelve others were recommended/selected for the appointment of Block Development Officers through Himachal Pradesh Administrative Services by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission on 1/9/1997. The pay scale of all fourteen Block Development Officers was fixed on the revised pay scale of Rs.7800.0011660/- from the date of their joining vide order dtd. 6/5/1998 passed by Director-cum-Addl. Secretary (Rural Development) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. However, the said authority vide its subsequent order dtd. 14/1/1999, while superseding the earlier order dtd. 6/5/1998, reduced and re-fixed the salary of the entire batch of fourteen Development Block Officers in the pay scale of Rs.7000.0010980 from the date of their joining. This order was challenged by twelve officers, out of fourteen, by filing CWP(T) No. 6007 of 2008, titled Balbir Singh and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. Respondents herein did not join their batch mates in the aforesaid petition as co-petitioners.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the respondents while considering the case of twelve Block Development Officers, who had filed the aforementioned writ petition in Balbir Singh Thakur's case supra, granted them the entire arrears. Respondents herein then approached this Court by filing CWP No. 3831 of 2012, which was disposed of by order dtd. 31/12/2014 on the basis of the judgments in Balbir Singh Thakur and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another, passed in CWP(T) No. 6007 of 2008, decided on 6/8/2010 as well as in Prem Raj versus State of H.P. and others and other connected matters passed in CWP No. 1807 of 2010, decided on 5/5/2010, requiring the petitioners to approach the respondents by means of suitable representation(s) and calling upon the respondents to decide the same after affording the opportunity of hearing to the petitioners by passing a reasoned order. The respondents- State this time, however, while deciding the representation of the petitioners directed Rural Development Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh who vide its order dtd. 25/2/2015 (which is wrongly mentioned as 25/2/2014 in the order) opined that since entire arrears have been paid to the other BDOs of the same batch on the basis of the advise of the Financial Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Respondents herein also sought the similar benefits and, therefore, recommended that their matter may be referred to the Finance Department for re-consideration.