Himachal Pradesh High Court Distressed Over State Govt Litigating Matter Involving Small Amount Of ₹2,500; Imposes 10K Cost

While ruling in favour of a retired Tehsildar and granting him a regular increment from July 2013 for extended period of service, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has criticized the State for engaging in frivolous litigation and emphasized the need for equal treatment of employees. "We are distressed that in such small value matters also, the State continues to litigate and harass the citizens", Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Ajay Mohan observed. In the instant case the respondent, a Tehsildar who retired on May 31, 2013, received an extension of service for one year from June 1, 2013, to May 31, 2014. A notification issued by the Government stipulated that the extension would not entitle him to any additional financial benefits, except his last pay drawn on May 31, 2013.The respondent, claiming entitlement to a regular increment from July 2013, approached the competent authority for its release but received no decision. After a representation was rejected in April 2014, he filed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to award him the regular increment as per government instructions.The Single Judge allowed his plea relying on Clause 22.2, Chapter 22 of the Handbook on Personnel Matters, as per which employees granted an extension of service are entitled to increments.Assailing the judgment of the single bench the Additional Advocate General argued that since the respondent had accepted the extension in service with the condition of non-increment, he has to be taken as having acquiesced the right.Adjudicating upon the matter the bench noted that "Having framed the executive instructions of the nature contained in Clause 22.2, Chapter 22 of the Handbook on Personnel Matters, Vol-II holding that the increment would be payable in case of extension in service, the appellants cannot deny the said benefit to the respondent since Clause 22.2, Chapter 22 of the Handbook on Personnel Matters, Vol-II is binding on the appellants."The court criticized the State for discriminating against the respondent while granting the same benefits to other employees. "The State as a model employer cannot discriminate among its employees in this manner and give a benefit which is conferred under the applicable rules/instructions to some, and deny the same to others",the bench underscored.Commenting on bargaining powers of the respondent vis-a-vis the appellant State, the court said that the respondent being a mere employee of the appellants, would be in a weaker position and would not have an equal bargaining power with the appellant, and he would have had to either accept the extension on the terms contained in the Notification or leave it, however, unreasonable or unfair the term of the order of extension is. "Having regard to the hugely unequal bargaining power between the respondent and the appellants, it cannot be said that the respondent had a choice in the matter at all and he had acquiesced in the condition of the extension order dt. 30.05.2013 that he would not get any additional increment", said the court. Accordingly the court dismissed the State's appeal, noting that the respondent had promptly made representations for the increment and had not acquiesced to the denial of benefits. Observing that the increment in question for which this appeal has been filed by the State has a small value of appropriately Rs.2500/- only, the bench criticized the State for litigating a matter with such minimal amount and accordingly dismissed the appeal with a costs of Rs. 10,000/-. Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Rajinder Fishta. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 40Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court Distressed Over State Govt Litigating Matter Involving Small Amount Of ₹2,500; Imposes 10K Cost

Basit Amin Makhdoomi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Himachal Pradesh High Court Distressed Over State Govt Litigating Matter Involving Small Amount Of ₹2,500; Imposes 10K Cost

Basit Amin Makhdoomi

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers