STATE OF H.P. Vs. SADA RAM AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INITIALLY , writ petition No. 134 of 1982 was preferred by respondents No. 1 & 2 herein, which was subsequently transferred as TA No. 545 of 1986 before the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Shimla (in short learned Tribunal), where respondents No. 1 & 2 were applicants and respondents No. 2 to 88 were the private respondents, said to be juniors who were given benefit of promotion to the post of 'Assistant' by the State Government. The respondents No. 1 & 2 herein had preferred CWP No. 134 of 1982 (TA No. 545 of 1986) with following prayer:

(2.) WRIT Petition No. 134/82 on transfer became the T.A. No. 545/1986, which was adjudicated and decided by an order dated 7.12.2005 of learned Tribunal. The said order was challenged by the State Government in Writ Petition No. 224/2006. This Court while adjudicating writ petition No. 224 of 2006 was pleased to dismiss the writ petition summarily, vide an order dated 24.3.2006 which was challenged by way of Special Leave Petition No. 12627 of 2006 (Civil Appeal No. 1717 of 2009, after grant of S.L.P.) and after hearing, Hon'ble Supreme court, vide order dated 18.3.2009, was pleased to dispose of the same relegating the Writ Petition No. 224 of 2006 to this High Court with direction for the disposal of the same. This is how, this Court is considering the C.W.P. No. 224 of 2006 afresh for disposal.

(3.) THE private respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 13 to 15, 18, 20, 27, 43, 45, 48, 54, 64, 72 and 75 before the learned Tribunal contested the claim of the applicants, i.e. (respondents No. 1 & 2). State Government raised preliminary objection before learned Tribunal that the application was pre -mature and not maintainable. On merits, it was claimed that the benefit of approved military service was restricted only for fixation of pay and seniority and not for all intents and purposes, therefore, fixation of the pay and seniority to the respondents No. 1 & 2 was done as per Rule 5 of the Rules. However, for the purpose of promotion as Assistants, the applicants/respondents No. 1 & 2 herein were to become eligible after completion of five years of service as Clerks in the H.P. Secretariat as provided under the H.P. Secretariat Class III Service (Recruitment & Promotion and Certain Conditions of Service) Rules, 1973. Since the applicants (respondents No. 1 & 2) had not completed five years of service as Clerks in the Secretariat, therefore, they were not eligible and were not considered for promotion as Assistants. It is on the strength of these submissions that the claim of the applicants (respondents herein), was denied by the State Government.