G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ
1. The present appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 09.12.2024 in CWP No.8810 of 2024 titled Roma Devi vs. State of H.P. and others whereby in lieu of the earlier order dated 28.08.2024 costs of Rs.5,000/- were imposed on account of the fact that the consideration had been undertaken by the Director, Elementary Education, H.P. on 07.12.2024 but the benefit had not been granted since the judgment in CWPOA No.5536 of 2020 titled Sanjay Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others was pending before the Apex Court.
2. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that mere pendency of an appeal against the decision sought to be implemented would not be a justifiable ground as such not to implement the judgment and there ore imposed the costs by which the State is aggrieved.
3. Counsel for the respondent-employee, on the other hand submits that in similar circ mstances the benefit of the judgment in Sanjay Kumar’s case (supra) had been granted by the department subject to the final outcome of the legal remedy as an SLP had been filed, in the cases of an order passed by t e Deputy Director, Elementary Education, Una and therefore he claimed parity as such and submitted that merely because he belongs to District Sirmaur, H.P., the State could not take a different stand.
4. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that it is not disputed that the contempt proceedings in pursuance of the said order were directed to be stayed which was the reason for the rejection as such and since the matter was pending before the Apex Court, there were justifiable reasons to reject the petitioner’s representation subject to final order. It is thus submitted that the order could have been challenged by filing a separate writ petition and the earlier CWP No.8810 of 2024 titled Roma Devi vs. State of H.P. and others which had been decided and had already been disposed of, the present proceedings were nly in compliance of the said order.
5. We are of the considered opinion that once the matter is pending bef re the Apex Court and in the lead case as such there is a stay, it would have been appropriate for the learned Single Judge to hold his hand rather than imposing costs on t e erring officer who had given justifiable reasons to pass the order of consideration which was the only direction given on 28.08.2024.
6. The consideration having been made rightly or wrongly, it could have been tested as such in separate proceedings. Even otherwise, since the benefit as such is only the financial benefit of ACP on 14 years of service, the order could always be enforced once the litigation has become final.
7. In such circumstances, we allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge imposing Rs.5,000/- costs rather than keeping the matter pending since even while issuing the notice of motion, the order had been stayed.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
