STATE OF H.P. Vs. SOHAN LAL.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated July 8, 1999, passed by learned Administrative Tribunal, H.P, whereby the learned Tribunal has directed the petitioners, herein, to exempt the respondent from passing the Departmental Examination on attaining his age of 50 years and to grant the annual increment (s) from time to time, till his retirement along with the benefit of re-fixation of his pension.

(2.) FACTS , in short, are that the respondent was a Patwari and was accepted as Kanungo against promotion quota along with others on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee vide order dated February 5, 1982 (Annexure-P1) which contained condition No.2 as follows:

(3.) IT is an admitted fact that the respondent was promoted as Kanungo purely on temporary basis vide Annexure-P2 dated March 11, 1982 and he was required to pass the Departmental Examination of Kanungo within three years from the date of his acceptance by availing not more than three chances. The respondent appeared in the said Examination in the Month of May, 1984. He cleared three papers but failed in Paper No. 3 and was thus, required to appear again but instead of doing so, he opted for seeking exemption and made an application seeking exemption by pressing into service Rule-5, aforesaid. His case was recommended by the Deputy Commissioner vide letter dated 12- 11-1986 addressed to the Director land Records but his request was rejected by the Financial Commissioner, whereas, exemption was granted to his junior Shri Gobind Ram vide letter dated 21.4.1988 (Annexure-P7). The matter was again referred by the Deputy Commissioner to the Director, Land Records for re- consideration vide his letter dated August 17, 1988, Annexure-P9 with his recommendations. Again, it did not find favour with the Director Land Records and the request was declined on the ground that the respondent was promoted without qualifying the Departmental Examination which was irregular and he stood retired (Annexure-P10). Thus the respondent filed O.A. No. 984 of 1996 which was allowed on the ground that the rejection of the representation of the applicant was arbitrary and the present petitioners were directed to exempt the respondent from passing the Departmental Examination after his attaining the age of 50 years, it further directed to grant him annual increments from the date he attained the age of 50 years till he retired with other consequential benefits as aforesaid.