Narain Dutt vs State of H.P. and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—The short question involved in this matter is whether the Petitioner is entitled to the amount of Rs. 30,000/-out of his gratuity which has been withheld on account of the fact that the State claims that it is entitled to recover some amount from the Petitioner on account of withdrawal of two increments.

It is not disputed that the Petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Basic Teacher (JBT) in the year 1966. He was promoted as Head Teacher in the year 1997. Thereafter, the Petitioner was promoted as Central Head Teacher and was retired from the said post on 28.2.2002.

The main dispute is that when the Petitioner was promoted as Head Teacher in the year 1997, he was granted two increments under Rule 22(A) and 22(C) of the Fundamental Rules. In the year 1998, the State Government issued a notification revising the pay scales of all the Government servants including the Petitioner and these revised pay scales were made applicable w.e.f. 1.1.1996. As a result of the revision of the pay scales, notice was issued to the employees including the present Petitioner as to why the benefit of two increments be not withdrawn. This action was challenged by the Petitioner and the other Head Teachers by filing Original Applications before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. One of the applications being CWP(T) No. 8118 of 2008 titled Shyam Lal Sharma v. State of H.P and Ors. was decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 26.5.2009 by a detailed judgment. Since the petition filed by the present Petitioner being CWP(T) No. 8121 of 2008 was virtually identical, it was disposed of by a short order which reads as follows:

It is not disputed by the parties that the present It is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP(T) No. 8118 of 2008 titled Shyam Lal Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. decided on 26.5.2009.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-3 dated 29.10.2001 is quashed and set aside. In normal circumstances, the Respondents could be granted opportunity to issue fresh notice to the Petitioner, however, the fact of the matter is that the Petitioner has retired during the pendency of this petition. In these circumstances, no useful purpose will be served to keep the matter pending. The matter is closed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

In view of the fact that the petition of the present Petitioner was allowed and the State has been estopped from making any recovery from the Petitioner and the matter has been closed, the State cannot recover any amount from the Petitioner. Therefore, the amount of gratuity along with the interest has to be released in favour of the Petitioner. Since the judgment in CWP(T) No. 8121 of 2008 was passed by the learned Single Judge only on 29th June, 2009, in my view, the Petitioner is not entitled to any interest till three months after the passing of the said order. Therefore, this petition is allowed and the Respondents are directed to pay the withheld amount of gratuity alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 1.10.2009 till the date of the payment of the same. The payment be made latest by 30th June, 2011 failing which the Respondents shall also be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum.

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.