State of Himachal Pradesh vs Som Dutt

Justice Deepak Gupta, J.—This letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment dated 03.03.2009, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby he issued three directions: 1. That the original writ petitioner be considered for promotion to the post of Controller, Printing and Stationery, with effect from 28.11.1990 in accordance with the notification dated 31.03.1979 and if found suitable to be promoted, he will be held entitled to all consequential benefits.

The respondents were directed to grant benefit of rent free accommodation to the original writ petitioner within a period of eight weeks, and

The respondents were directed to pay interest @ 9% per annum to the original writ petitioner on gratuity from the due date till its realization.

As far as the first direction is concerned, admittedly, the original writ petitioner was appointed as Deputy Controller (Printing and Stationery) with effect from 28.11.1984. As per the rules, he was eligible for promotion to the higher post of Controller on completion of six years of service, i.e., with effect from 28.11.1990. The stand of the State was that this post had been declared to be a duty post for the officers belonging to the Himachal Administrative Services.

The learned Single Judge held, and in our opinion rightly so, that when an employee from the Department was available and qualified as per the rules, there was no justification for declaring the post to be a duty post for the HAS. Admittedly, the post does not fall in the cadre of HAS and no fault can be found with the first direction.

As far as the second direction is concerned, the learned Single Judge held that the original writ petitioner was entitled to rent free accommodation only on the basis of Annexure P-8, dated 26.07.1984, whereby Shri K.C. Bhardwaj, who was the previous Deputy Controller, was granted rent free accommodation by the State. The stand of the State is that, in fact, Shri K.C. Bhardwaj, though was holding the substantive post of Deputy Controller, was actually functioning as Controller during the entire period when he was given the rent free accommodation. According to the State, it is only the Head of the Department, who is entitled to rent free accommodation. During the period when the original writ petitioner claims rent free accommodation, some other person was working as Head of Department. Hence, this prayer, in our view, could not have been allowed and to this extent, the judgment is set aside.

We may, however, clarify that if the petitioner is held entitled for promotion w.e.f. 28.11.1990, from the date when he has been ordered to be considered or any other date up to 05.12.1992, then for this period, he shall be deemed to be the Head of Department and eligible to grant of rent free accommodation.

As far as the third direction for payment of interest is concerned, it is contended on behalf of the State that the gratuity was withheld because of a criminal case against the petitioner, which is still pending. The criminal case was filed sometime in the year 1993. Almost two decades have elapsed and the gratuity was released in the year 2009. When the State has retained the gratuity for so many years, it is duty bound to pay the interest on the same. Therefore, the third direction is also held to be legal and valid. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the appeal is partly allowed, insofar as relief No. 2 granted by the learned Single Judge of this Court is concerned. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.