SANSAR CHAND AWASTHI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by way of present writ petition, has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-

(2.) The facts which emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioner was appointed with the respondents-State as Deputy Labour Commissioner on 7/8/1986, and had been asked to perform the duties on the post of Joint Labour Commissioner on different spells of time and the total period of service is 463 days. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Joint Labour Commissioner on 12/6/1998. Since the petitioner was not granted the benefit of counting the period of service for increments on the post of Joint Labour Commissioner and salary when he served on the said post while discharging the duties of Deputy Labour Commissioner under Rule 26 and 49 of F.R.S.R, he preferred a representation on 10/6/2005 (Annexure A-1) requesting therein to accord necessary sanction for counting of 463 days past duty on the post of Joint Labour Commissioner. However, the said request made by the petitioner was turned down, vide communication dtd. 22/10/2005 (Annexure A-12).

(3.) The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order rejecting his claim, has filed the instant petition on the ground that Rule 26 of F.R.S.R stipulates that once the petitioner while officiating on a post, holding a temporary post on a time scale of pay, was appointed to officiate in a higher post and thereafter he was re-appointed to the lower post on the same time scale of pay, the period has to be counted for increments in the time scale applicable to such lower post. Further, it has been averred that the necessity to appoint the petitioner was with a view to discharge the job and function of the higher office and in such similar circumstances, the State had already granted the benefit to one Sh. Manoj Tomar under F.R.S.R. 26, who at the relevant time being Deputy Chief University Employment Information and Guidance Bureau, Shimla-5, had performed the additional job functions of the higher post of Deputy Director, Employment, H.P. in addition to his own duties. He was allowed the additional remuneration @10% of the presumptive pay and also the preponing of his increment benefit on the post of Deputy Director. However, the said benefit of the preponement of the increment has been denied to him. The petitioner has also raised a plea that under F.R. 49, he was entitled to the pay of the post of Joint Labour Commissioner and the respondents have not granted the said benefits, which has caused financial loss to him. The petitioner had been given the admissive pay for a period of 157 days only out of total 463 days for which he had actually worked as Joint Labour Commissioner on different spells of time.