Sh. Dinesh Verma vs State of H.P. and Other

Sanjay Karol, J.—Essentially petitioner, as orally stated, is aggrieved of the order dated 18.01.2011 (Annexure P-17), which reads thus:- No. IPH(A)2(B)2-7/2007 Government of Himachal Pradesh, Irrigation and Public Health Deptt.

From

The Principal Secretary (IPH) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh.

The Engineer-in-Chief,

I & PH Department, Shimla-1

Dated Shimla-171 002 the 18/01/2011

Subject:--Regarding change of designation as Clerk instead of Water Works Clerk on compassionate grounds-representation thereof.

Sir,

I am directed to refer your letter No. IPH-ES-III-emp.Assis.(S.Z)Vol.VII/2010-6214-15 dated 25.11.2010 on the subject cited above and to say that matter under reference has been examined at Govt. level in detail. As per the OM No. Per(AP-II)2(4)-PS9 dated 18.01.11 para No. 11, designation of Sh. Dinesh Kumar S/o. Late Sh. Sohan Singh cannot be changed from Water Works Clerk to Clerk at this belated stage. You are, therefore, requested to examine such type of cases as per the instructions of the Govt. issued from time to time in this regard and only those proposal(s) be sent to Govt. which are covered under the rules instructions of the Govt. You are, therefore, requested to take action in the matter accordingly.

Yours faithfully, Sd/- Special Secretary (IPH) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh.

Shorn of details, suffice it to note that petitioner was appointed as a Water Work Clerk/Bill Clerk on compassionate basis w.e.f. 27.12.2004. This was despite the fact that with regard to similarly situated persons, respondents, in accordance with its policy, had given appointment as a Clerk and not a Bill Clerk/Water Work Clerk. Clerk is Grade-III post. Petitioner immediately brought this anomaly and act of discrimination to the notice of competent authority. Evidently communication dated 17.09.2005 is on record to this effect. The respondents did not take any action till the time his request was rejected vide impugned order dated 18.01.2011 (Annexure P-17).

Noticeably rejection is on the ground that request could not be considered "at this belated stage". Record reveals that delay is not attributable to the petitioner at all. In fact, petitioner had been pursuing his grievances and had taken all necessary action(s) within time. As such, on this short ground alone, present petition is disposed of, quashing the order dated 18.01.2011 (Annexure P-17), with a further direction to the respondents, to consider the petitioner''s representation, in accordance with law, after affording adequate opportunity of hearing/representation to all including the petitioner, within a period of three months, from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. Needless to add, the authorities shall pass a reasoned order, which shall be communicated to all concerned.

Petitioner also claims that there is no channel for promotion from the post of Water Work Clerk. It shall also be open to him to agitate his grievances, in accordance with law, in that regard. Respondents shall also look into this aspect of the matter. Needless to add, it shall also be open for the petitioner to independently challenge the rules, or to recourse to such remedies, as advised, if need so arises.

With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.