LAWS(HPH)-2014-11-84

NEERAJA MARWAHA Vs. STATE OF H P

Decided On November 21, 2014
Neeraja Marwaha Appellant
V/S
STATE OF H P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant vide office order dated 7.6.2000. The promotion orders were withdrawn by the respondents on 17.3.2003. Petitioner challenged order dated 17.3.2003 by way of original application. It was transferred to this Court and assigned CWP (T) No.9658 of 2008. It was decided on 22.3.2010. Respondents preferred an appeal against the judgment dated 22.3.2010. The same was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 24.4.2012. Fact of the matter is that the judgment rendered in Ram Lal Sharma and others vs. State of H.P. and another stood implemented, as per statement of the learned Additional Advocate General recorded in LPA No. 484 of 2012 decided on 26.11.2013. Case of the petitioner was required to be looked into on the analogy of Ram Lal Sharma's case.

(2.) Petitioner has sought voluntary retirement on 31.5.2013. The gratuity of the petitioner was sanctioned. However, the Chief Medical Officer sent a communication to the Director of Health Services bringing to his notice that decision of the Tribunal was still awaited. The Chief Medical Officer thereafter vide office order dated 6.6.2014 withheld a sum of Rs. 1,06,238/- only on the ground that original application was pending decision. The contents of letter dated 6.6.2014 were factually incorrect. The original application filed by the petitioner, which was transferred to this Court and converted as CWP (T) No.9658 of 2008 stood decided on 22.3.2010. The LPA No.712 of 2011 preferred against order dated 22.3.2010 was decided by a Division Bench of this Court and on the basis of the statement of learned Additional Advocate General recorded in LPA No. 484 of 2012, the petitioner would be entitled to similar treatment, which was accorded to Ram Lal Sharma.

(3.) Respondent being a welfare State could not be oblivious to the developments which have taken place from 22.3.2010 till LPAs No. 712/2011 and 484 of 2012 decided on 24.4.2012 and 26.11.2013. The gratuity is a property and not a bounty.