Brahm Dass vs State of H.P. and Others

Surinder Singh, J.—The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no claim is sought against the respondents No. 3 to 5, thus prayed for and allowed the deletion of their names from the array of respondents.

Heard and gone through the record.

Petitioner was appointed on 7th December, 1987 as Chain-man on daily wage in the Settlement department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. His services were terminated on 1.7.1990, but reengaged on 2.4.1992 as is evident from Annexure R/5, the final seniority list of daily waged Chain-man placed on record by the respondents with their reply. Similarly respondent No. 3 Hoshiar Singh Chainman, whose name is ordered to be deleted as aforesaid, figures at serial No. 10 of the said annexure was appointed on 15.10.1986 as such and was also terminated on the same date i.e. on 1.7.1990 and later reengaged on 1.4.1992.

It appears that on 1.7.1990, several other daily wagers i.e. about 40 such persons who were working as Chain-man were also terminated and later reengaged in a similar way in the year 1992 on different dates. When they were reengaged, some of them filed Original Applications before the erstwhile Tribunal, out of which, one Yashwant Singh had also filed O.A. No. 648 of 1990, which was decided on 31.8.1995 whereby the learned Tribunal set-aside their termination and period of termination was ordered to be counted for the purposes of seniority. On the basis of this judgment, Hoshiar Singh, Chain-man aforesaid who had been respondent No. 3 in this petition was given the benefit and to this effect, an office order Annexure A-3 dated 2.4.1997 was issued by the respondents. By virtue of this order, he was regularized alongwith few others.

Prima-facie, the case of the petitioner appears to be similar to that of Hoshiar Singh, who was given the benefit of judgment of the learned erstwhile Tribunal, rendered in Yashwant Singh''s case supra.

Supreme Court in Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi and another Vs. Dr. Indra Pratap Singh, held that the same term ought to have been extended to similarly situate persons.

In view of the above, the respondents are hereby directed to consider the case of the petitioner for condoning the break at par with the case of Hoshiar Singh considering the fact if the petitioner has completed 240 days in each calendar year prior to the year 1995 and also to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in terms of eligibility and as per Policy of the State Government with effect from the date his juniors were promoted and given seniority with consequential benefits. Respondents are further directed to finalize the case of the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Petition stands disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.