SHIV RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs:-

(2.) Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that on 31/10/1988, petitioner was selected as Village Extension Officer through H.P. Public Service Commission and since then, he had been working with the respondent-department till his superannuation. Since, despite petitioner being eligible, he was not being promoted to the post of Horticulture Development Officer, he approached this Court by way of CWP-T No. 2493 of 2008, titled Shiv Ram and another vs. State of H.P. and others ( Annexure P-1). After having taken into consideration pleadings adduced on record by respective parties in the aforesaid case, this Court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Horticulture Development Officer w.e.f. 1999 with all consequential benefits against the available vacancies or by creating supernumerary posts within a period of four months from the date of passing of the judgment. It is not in dispute that aforesaid judgment never came to be laid challenge in the superior court of law and as such, same has attained finality.

(3.) Pursuant to directions contained in the aforesaid judgment, respondents vide notification dtd. 27/1/2014 (Annexure P-2), convened a meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee and thereafter on its recommendation, promoted the petitioner to the post of Horticulture Development Officer (Class-I Gazetted) in the department of Horticulture w.e.f. 15/12/1999 (on contract basis) and w.e.f 16/9/2009 (on regular basis). However, while passing aforesaid order of promotion, no arrears, if any, were paid to the petitioner on account of his being promoted to the post of Horticulture Development Officer from due date, as such, he was compelled to approach this Court by way of Execution Petition No. 10 of 2015, which ultimately came to be disposed of vide judgment dtd. 25/8/2015, Annexure P-3. Vide aforesaid judgment, Division Bench of this Court disposed of Execution Petition filed by the petitioner directing the respondents to comply with the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment dtd. 24/8/2012, passed by this Court in CWP-T NO. 2493 of 2008, wherein admittedly this Court while issuing direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Horticulture Development Officer had ordered for grant of all consequential benefits. Despite there being aforesaid order passed in execution proceedings, respondents failed to comply with the aforesaid directions contained in judgment dtd. 24/8/2012, Annexure P-3, passed by this Court and as such, petitioner filed contempt petition bearing COPC No. 421/2016, Annexure P-6, which came to be disposed of vide judgment dtd. 18/5/2017. Careful perusal of the aforesaid judgment reveals that during the pendency of the contempt petition, order dtd. 15/5/2017 (Annexure P-5) came to be passed by Principal Secretary (Horticulture) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, conveying therein decision to implement the judgment dtd. 24/8/2012, passed by this Court in CWP-T No.2493 of 2002, Division Bench of this Court, having taken note of the aforesaid communication, disposed of the contempt petition, but reserved liberty to the petitioner to lay challenge to aforesaid consideration order passed by the authorities by way of independent proceedings. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, specifically laying therein challenge to order dtd. 15/5/2017 (Annexure P-5) whereby respondents while implementing the judgment dtd. 24/8/2012, passed by this Court in CWP-T No.2483 of 2008, restricted the arrears due to the petitioner on account of his promotion to the post of Horticulture Development Officer for 3 years prior to date of filing of the aforesaid petition.