AMAR NATH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has by this writ petition called in question two orders, Annexure A dated 27th December, 1972 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur whereby he, on appeal by Amarjit Mehta, Octroi Superintendent of the Municipal Committee Bilaspur, modified the sentence imposed by the Committee, and the order dated 1st January, 1973 Annexure B whereby Shri Atnarjit Mehta, on partly accepting the appeal, was reinstated as an Octroi Superintendent.

(2.) Shri Amar Nath petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the Small Town Committee, Bilaspur in the year 1947 and Shri Amarjit Mehta was appointed as an Octroi Clerk in the year 1958. In 1962 the status of the Small Town Committee was raised to that of a Municipal Committee, Known as Municipal Committee New Bilaspur Township and both the petitioner as also the respondent No. 4, i. e. Amarjit Mehta, continued to serve in the Committee as Octroi Clerk. In the year 1965, respondent no. 4 was promoted as officiating Octroi Suprintendent. At that time, according to the petitioner though he was senior but he was not considered for promotion. He had also filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 28 ot J966 in the High Court of Delhi (Himachal Bench) at Simla rejecting his representation against the appointment of Shri Amarjit Mehta as Octroi Superintendent in the Municipal Committee, New Bilaspur Township in preference to him. But that writ petition was dismissed on September 21, 1967 by S. N. Shankar, J., holding that the petitioner was not qualified nor were the provisions of Articles 14 and 16, attracted to the case of the petitioner. It was also one of the contentions raised by the present petitioners learned counsel in that petition before the Delhi High Court (Himachal Bench) at Simla that due to the misdeeds, disobedience, negligence and misappropriation of the Municipal Committee funds the respondent no. 4, i. e. Amarjit Mehta, had been suspended by the Committee and which fact was admitted and it was observed that this did not in any way improve the case of the petitioner. It only showed that there was no favouritism shown in favour of the respondent (Amarjit Mehta) and that he was treated like any other employee.

(3.) The petitioner during the suspension period of Amarjit Mehta was promoted to the post of Octroi Superintendent vide order dated 25th July, 1968 (Annexure F). This order is in the following terms : - "Annexure F No. MC/PF/68 -1015 Office of the Municipal Committee New Bilaspur Township Dated Bilaspur the, 25th July, .968. Shri Amar Nath Gupta, Octroi Clerk, New Bilaspur Township, OFFICE ORDER You are hereby promoted as officiating Octroi Superintendent Municipal Committee, New Bilaspur Township on purely temporary and ad hoc basis on the pay scale of Rs. 75 -5 -125/5 -175 and usual allowances as permissible under rules with immediate effect, till the decision of suspension case of Shri Amarjit Mehta, Octroi Superintendent under suspension. (Sd./ -) President." After the reinstatement of Shri Amarjit Mehta, the petitioner was reverted to his original post as an Octroi Clerk and it is thereafter that he filed the present writ petition challenging these orders Annexures A and ˜B