Madan Kumar vs State of H.P. and Others

Surjit Singh, J.—Heard and gone through the record.

Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 7.11.2006, Annexure A-7, by which final Seniority List of Junior Engineers, working in the Directorate of Urban Development, was circulated and also by order of the same date, Annexure A-8, by which order of his regularization to the post of Junior Engineer, issued on 7.6.2000, had been withdrawn.

Facts, relevant for the disposal of the petition, may be noticed. Petitioner was engaged as Junior Engineer, by Nagar Panchayat, Santokhgarh, in the year 1991. In the year 1994, a Scheme was issued by the State of H.P., by virtue of which, persons working on daily wage basis, in Government departments, including Panchayats, were to be regularized, on completion of 10 years service. Later on, period was reduced to 8 years. In the year 1996, recommendation was made by Deputy Commissioner, Una, vide Annexure A-11, to the Director, Urban Local Bodies, for creation of a post of Junior Engineer, for accommodating the petitioner, on account of work load having increased in the said Panchayat. There is nothing on record, indicating as to what action was taken on this reference by the Deputy Commissioner. However, in the year 2000, on the basis of information supplied by the Panchayat to the Director, Urban Development, services of the petitioner were regularized, vide order dated 7.6.2000, Annexure A-2, apparently in accordance with the aforesaid Scheme of 1994, for regularization of services of daily waged/contingent workers.

Thereafter, a tentative Seniority List of Junior Engineers, working under the Directorate of Urban Development, was circulated, vide letter dated 25.9.2004, Annexure A-6. Petitioner''s name was shown at Sr. No. 19 in that list. Objections were invited from the affected Junior Engineers. It appears that respondent No. 3 made some representation and on the basis of that representation, name of the petitioner was deleted from the final Seniority List, circulated on 7.11.2006, vide Annexure A-7, and also order Annexure A-8 was issued on the same date, withdrawing order of regularization of services of the petitioner.

Petitioner''s grievance is that order, Annexure A-8, withdrawing the earlier order of regularization of his services, is bad and similarly Seniority List, circulated vide Annexure A-7, omitting his name from final Seniority List, is illegal and void. Prayer has been made for quashing both Annexures A-7 and A-8.

Petition has been contested by respondents 1 and 2, that is, State of H.P. as also Director, Urban Development. Private respondents, Rajesh Chaudhary and Gopesh Behal, whose names figure in the Seniority List, Annexure A-7, have also contested the petition. Plea taken by the contesting respondents is that petitioner had not completed 8 years service as daily waged Junior Engineer or contingent Junior Engineer, in the year 2000, when his services were regularized and that the order of regularization, Annexure A-2, was issued on the basis of misleading and wrong information, supplied by Nagar Panchayat, Santokhgarh. According to them, petitioner was engaged daily waged Junior Engineer in the year 1994 and that prior to that, for three years, he worked only as part time Junior Engineer and that period was not required to be counted in accordance with the Scheme of 1994, referred to above.

I have heard the Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

Parties have taken a lot of time to demonstrate from the documents, whether the petitioner was a daily waged worker, or a part time worker, prior to the year 1994. However, there is one document, in the form of reply filed by the petitioner himself in the Hon''ble Supreme Court in an S.L.P., which arose from an order of interim nature, passed in this very case, and in that reply, which is available on record as Annexure R-3/14, petitioner himself admitted that he was a part time Junior Engineer from 1991 to 1994, though he stated that he was part time Junior Engineer under two Nagar Panchayats, that is, Santokhgarh and Mehatpur. Engagement of the petitioner as part time Junior Engineer by two Panchayats, at the same time, would not make him a daily waged worker or a contingent worker. Therefore, period from 1991 to 1994, when the petitioner, per his own admission in Annexure R-3/14, was a part time worker, could not have been taken into account, while passing the withdrawn order, Annexure A-2, for regularization of his service. If that is so, no fault can be found with the order Annexure A-8, withdrawing order Annexure A-2, nor can any fault be found with the final Seniority List, circulated vide Annexure A-7, in which the name of the petitioner does not figure.

However, from the record, it is made out that the petitioner played no role in seeking his regularization, nor did he make any claim to the Director, Urban Development, for issuing order Annexure A-2, in his favour. It was some Screening Committee, which recommended regularization of services of the petitioner, as is clear from a bare reading of Annexure A-2. It is, therefore, directed that respondent No. 2 shall consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services, on completion of 8 years service, to be counted from the year 1994, when he was engaged as daily wager, without being prejudiced by the fact that wrong or misleading information was supplied by the Panchayat, which led to the passing of the withdrawn order, Annexure A-2, in the light of Scheme of 1994 and also the judgment of the Supreme Court in P.V. Papanna and others Vs. K. Padmanabhaiah, This direction be complied with by 30th September, 2010.