STATE OF H.P. Vs. BAR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated December 28, 2001 passed by the H.P. Administrative Tribunal directing the Petitioners to promote Respondents 1 to 7, Bhagwan Chand Kashyap deceased now represented by Respondents No. 8 to 11 and Prakash Chand now represented by Respondents No. 12 to 16 (hereafter referred to as 'the claimants') as Senior Clerks from the date they completed 7 years and 5 months of service during the period November 1, 1996 to November 30, 1971 and further promote them to the post of Assistants with effect from July 4, 1973 within three months of the order the Petitioners have preferred the present petition praying that the said order may be quashed and set aside.

(2.) The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that consequent upon the re-organization of composite State of Punjab on 1st November, 1966 the clerks inherited by the State of Himachal Pradesh having eight years service as on 31.10.1966 were equated with Senior Clerks in Himachal Pradesh Secretariat. In order to extend similar benefits to similarly situate employees of H.P. Secretariat 69 posts of Clerks were created and equal number of Clerks having eight years or seven years and 5 months service as on 1.11.1966 were promoted as Senior Clerks" with effect from November 1, 1966. A few other Clerks in the H.P. Secretariat who had completed eight years or seven years and five months service between November 1, 1966 and November 30, 1971 submitted representation and claimed promotion as Senior Clerks on the analogy of their seniors on the completion of eight years or seven years and five months service as Junior Clerks in the H.P. Secretariat. Their representation was accepted by the State Government and the benefits as per their representation were allowed. The Government also promoted eight clerks as Senior Assistants from back date during the period February 24, 1973 to June 4, 1973 vide order dated July 30, 1984. Three Clerks were allocated on re-organization of composite State of Punjab on November 1, 1966 to the Office of Petitioner No. 2. On the recommendation of the Punjab Reorganization Committee, the Clerks allotted to Himachal Pradesh having eight years service were to be equated with Senior Clerks of Himachal Pradesh, therefore, Clerks having more than eight years of service on November 1, 1966 allocated from Punjab were equated as Senior Clerks with effect from February 3, 1961 and April 24, 1964 by Petitioner No. 2 vide order dated May 1, 1970. Since the cadre of Senior Clerk did not exist in the composite State of Punjab and it existed in the State of Himachal Pradesh, therefore, Government devised a formula to equate the Clerks with eight or seven years and five months service coming from Punjab with Senior Clerks in the Secretariat as per letter dated September 20, 1971. On November 1, 1966 there was no Clerk with eight years service in the office of Petitioner No. 2. However, since the Government had given the benefit to those Clerks in the H.P. Secretariat who had completed eight years and seven years and five months service between November 1, 1966 and November 30, 1971, therefore, the claimants also fell in the category of those Clerks who were given the benefits during the aforesaid period. The claimants claiming that they were similarly situate as their counterparts in Himachal Pradesh Government Secretariat represented for extending them the similar benefits as extended to their counterparts in the Secretariat. However, their representation was rejected vide order dated March 7, 1991. Aggrieved by the rejection of their representation, the claimants preferred O.A. No. 511 of 1991 before the H.P. Administrative Tribunal.

(3.) The Petitioners filed reply to the O.A. wherein as in this petition the facts regarding allocation of the Clerks from the composite State of Punjab, equation of those having eight or more years of service as on October 31, 1966 with Senior Clerks on recommendations of the Punjab Re-Organization Advisory Committee by the State Government of Himachal Pradesh are not disputed. It was further averred that decision of the Government of India led to claim from the Clerks of the H.P. Unit seeking similar treatment and, therefore, Government made recommendation to the Government of India to treat all Clerks with eight or more years of service as Senior Clerks irrespective of the fact whether they belong to the composite State of Punjab or State of Himachal Pradesh. The Government of India rejected the recommendation. Nevertheless, the Petitioner No. 1 decided to grant equal treatment to all its employees and as a consequence posts of Senior Clerks were created to accommodate the Clerks allotted from Punjab and those already serving in the H.P. Secretariat for eight or more years. In the year 1974, the Government of India accepted representation from incoming Clerks who had less than eight years service on October 30, 1966 but were ranked senior in their own unit list, to the junior most, equated as Senior Clerks with effect from November 1, 1966. This gave rise to claim by several Clerks in the H.P. Secretariat having equal or more service. Keeping in view the principle of 'same treatment' such Clerks were also promoted as Senior Clerks with effect from November 1, 1966. It has been denied that the claimants were similarly situated as those who were given the aforesaid benefits because the Himachal Pradesh Secretariat staff is governed by separate Recruitment and Promotion Rules and Himachal Pradesh Police Ministerial Staff is governed by different Recruitment and Promotion Rules and the claimants thus did not fall "in the circumstances" in which the Secretariat clerks were placed.