High Court slams Finance Department for denying benefits to petitioner’s rightful entitlements

Himachal Pradesh High Court slammed the State finance department for denying the rightful pecuniary entitlement to petitioners unfolding a saga of bureaucratic overreach.

A division bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja held that the State finance department acted as superior authority denying the due benefits in the promotion of Senior Statistical Assistant in 1998.

A verdict delivered on May 8, 2024, the court said that the finance department underscored the absence of stringent age or educational qualification prerequisites for such promotions.

This pivotal fact formed the cornerstone of the petitioner Mr. Nand Lal who challenged the State of H.P & Ors., represented by legal advocates Mr. Rakesh Dogra and the state was represented by Mr. Anup Rattan, respectively. 

The Finance Department’s decree, issued on November 8, 2010, cast a shadow over the petitioner’s rightful entitlements.

 Court-mandated revised higher pay scales for Statistical Assistants contingent upon qualifications akin to those in the Department of Economics and Statistics.

 However, the court’s scrutiny revealed a glaring incongruity – the retrospective application of this directive to officials already promoted before its issuance.

In a scathing rebuke, Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan denounced the Finance Department’s audacity in flouting established statutory rules. 

Court emphasized the sacrosanct nature of rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, which cannot be subverted by executive whims. 

The jury’s disapproval resonated loud and clear – no department, irrespective of its stature, could wield authority beyond its mandated purview.

 The respondents were directed to recalibrate the petitioner’s salary, reinstating the rightful pay scale from January 1, 1986. 

Moreover, pension benefits were to be reconfigured in alignment with the revised pay scale, coupled with an interest rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount/arrears.

However, justice was not served solely through monetary redress. Recognizing the petitioner’s arduous legal battle, the court levied a fine of Rs. 50,000.

 This punitive measure, equally borne by the Finance Department and respondent No. 2, served as a stark reminder of governmental accountability.