The State of H.P. vs Sh. Khem Raj Sharma

Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J.—This is an application for review of the judgment, dated 3rd April, 2012 filed by the respondents-State. The writ petition was filed praying for a direction to give the entire arrears on account of the implementation of the judgments of this Court in Paras Ram Vs. State of H.P. and Sita Ram Vs. State of H.P. from the date of initial appointment. The issue pertains to the claim made by the writ petitioners for increments during the tenture/ad hoc period. The writ petition was disposed of directing the State to grant the benefits in terms of the decisions in Paras Ram Vs. State of H.P./ Sita Ram Vs. State of H.P. However, when the actual monetary benefits were limited for a period of three years, the writ petition was filed praying for a direction to grant the benefits from the date of initial appointment. The writ petitioner was initially appointed on 2nd September, 1985 on tenure basis. He was regularized in service on 2.9.1995, after ten years. For the said period of ten years, he was not getting increments. However, in the light of the decision of this Court in Sita Ram Vs. State of H.P., he would be entitled to increments for those ten years and his pay will be fixed accordingly on regularization. In other words, on the date of regularization instead of fixing the pay on the basic of the scale attached to the post, his pay will be fixed by granting increments for the period of tenure service.

The writ petition was disposed of directing that the writ petitioner would be entitled to the benefits without any restriction on arrears for three years. On behalf of the State, learned Advocate General points out that neither in Sita Ram''s case nor in Paras Ram''s case was there any direction to grant the actual monetary benefits w.e.f. the date of initial appointment on ad hoc/tenure service while granting the increments. Therefore, it is contended that in the light of the decisions of the apex Court in Jai Dev Gupta Vs. State of H.P. and Another, , and Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , the State was well within its rights to limit the actual monetary benefits on account of re-fixation by granting increments from the date of initial appointment on tenure/ ad hoc basis, at least to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition, though it is vehemently contended by the learned Advocate General that the benefit should be limited from the date of the order by the Court. As rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate General, none of these contentions have been addressed in the judgment, dated 3rd April, 2012. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that the judgment, dated 3rd April, 2012 requires review and hence the same is recalled. The review petition is allowed, as above. Post the writ petition for hearing on 7th January, 2013.