Back
2011 Supreme(HP) 1739
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Kuldip Singh, Judge.
Sobha Sood. - Petitioner.
Versus
The State of H.P.& Ors. - Respondents.
CWP(T) No. 7390 of 2008.
Decided on : 24.03.2011.
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. A.G.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to annual increments based on the conditions of the appointment letter and relevant rules, and the wrongful withdrawal of increments.
Headnote:
increments - Employment Dispute - Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, F.R. 24 - The judgment discusses the petitioner's entitlement to annual increments, the conditions of appointment, and the withholding of increments. The court emphasizes the conditions of the appointment letter, the relevant rules, and the wrongful withdrawal of increments, ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the threatened recovery of about Rs. 35,000 by the respondents on account of alleged wrong payment of annual increments. The petitioner also sought direction for releasing annual increments and payment of interest on arrears.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to annual increments from 16.06.1988 onwards and directed the respondents to fix her pay accordingly. The court also held that the respondents wrongly recovered Rs. 33,527 from the petitioner and directed them to refund the amount with interest.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's entitlement to annual increments, the conditions of appointment, the withholding of increments, and the recovery of alleged overpayments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the conditions of the appointment letter, the relevant rules, and the wrongful withdrawal of increments, ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioner.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was held entitled to annual increments from 16.06.1988 onwards. The respondents were directed to fix her pay accordingly and refund Rs. 33,527 to the petitioner with interest.
Kuldip Singh, Judge
The petitioner has challenged the threatened recovery of about Rs. 35,000/- by respondents from petitioner starting from March, 2001 on account of alleged wrong payment of annual increments for the period 16.06.1988 to 16.06.1995. The petitioner has also prayed a direction to respondents for releasing annual increments to petitioner for the period 16.06.1996 onwards and to pay interest at the rate of 18% on arrears accruing on account of annual increments.
2. The facts, in brief, are that petitioner was appointed as Steno-typist in Education Department on the recommendation of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short Public Service Commission) on 28.02.1987. The petitioner has placed on record her appointment letter dated 28.02.21987 along with its Annexure-A. The condition No.6 of Annexure-A provides that the candidate was required to qualify Hindi type test within six months from the date of joining, failing which the candidate would not be entitled for annual increments and his/her services were liable to be terminated. The condition No. 19 in Annexure-A of the appointment letter of the petitioner provides that she was to clear the test in Shorthand/typewriting in 18 months from the date of her appointment, failing which her services were liable to be terminated.
3. The petitioner in pursuance to her appointment letter dated 28.02.1987 joined as Steno-typist in the Office of Deputy District Education Officer at Palampur on 16.06.1987. The petitioner appeared in Hindi type test before the Public Service Commission, the result was declard on 28.01.1988. As per corrigendum dated 26.03.1990, the petitioner was declared successful in typewriting and shorthand test in Hindi. The delay in declaration of the result in no way was attributable to petitioner. The petitioner was eligible and was given annual increments after completion of one year of service on 16.06.1988, thereafter every year in the month of June till 16.06.1995 by Deputy District Education Officer, Palampur where the petitioner was working.
4. In September, 1995, the petitioner was transferred from Palampur to Dharamsala. The petitioner was legitimately expecting annual increments on 16.06.1996 and thereafter, but the respondent No. 3 with-held the same illegally and without following the principles of natural justice. The action of with-holding increments for the period 16.06.1996 to 16.06.1999 is illegal.
5. On inquiry made by the petitioner, she was told that annual increments for the period 16.06.1996 to 16.06.1999 are not admissible to petitioner as the petitioner was required to pass typewriting and shorthand test in English. The annual increments would be given from the date of passing of said test. This stand of the respondents was contrary to Rules. The petitioner passed typewriting and shorthand test in English on 31.07.1999 which is clear from the communication dated 16.09.1999.
6. On passing typewriting and shorthand test in English, the petitioner was entitled and eligible for annual increments with effect from 31.07.1999 and thereafter every year in the month of July. The petitioner believed that respondent No.3 had prepared arrears bill on account of release of annual increments with effect from July, 1999, July, 2000 till February, 2001, amounting to Rs. 26,029/- in March, 2001, but respondent No.3 had adjusted aforesaid arrears bill of Rs. 26,029/- on account of alleged over payment of annual increments given to the petitioner from 16.06.1988 to 16.06.1995. The respondent No.3 has also orally directed bill Clerk to recover alleged over payment of Rs. 8,950/- on account of annual increments from 16.06.1988 to 16.06.1995 from the salary of the petitioner of March, 2001 payable in April, 2001 and thereafter.
7. The action of respondents in effecting the recovery of about Rs. 35,000/- from the salary of the petitioner amounts to imposing penalty and same could not be effected without complying with the
