Ramesh Chand vs State of H.P. and Others

V.K. Sharma, J.—The Petitioner had joined the employment of the Respondents, particularly Respondent No. 3 initially as daily wage helper on 4.9.1980. As per Seniority list of daily wage helpers as on 31.3.1988, Annexure A-1, the Petitioner was figuring at Sr. No. 15. For the purpose of the present controversy, it shall be pertinent to notice that whereas Hans Raj and Kuldeep Singh whose names find mention at Sr. Nos. 7 and 9, respectively of the aforesaid seniority list were undoubtedly senior to the Petitioner, Ashok Kumar and Kumar Singh, Sr. Nos. 21 and 23 were Junior to him. Later on an exercise for regularization-categorization of casual workers engaged in Mechanical Division, H.P. P.W.D, Dharamshala was undertaken vide office order dated 31.3.1988, persuant to which the aforesaid Kumar Singh and Ashok Kumar who were admittedly Junior to the Petitioner were designated as Fitter Grade-II and Fitter Grade-I, respectively. Thereafter the aforesaid HansRaj and Kuldeep Singh, who were senior to the Petitioner also came to be designated as Fitter Grade-II, vide office order dated 27.9.1991. However, the Petitioner who was admittedly senior to Ashok Kumar and Kumar Singh was left out. Being aggrieved he made representation dated 26.9.1991, Annexure A-6 to Respondent No. 6 stating that his name for re-designation as Fitter Grade-II has been ignored and persons junior to him as stated hereinabove given preference over him, he may also be similarly treated and designated as Fitter Grade-II, but without any result. Consequently, he served legal notice dated 4.11.1991, Annexure A-7 upon Respondent No. 3 reiterating his claim for designation as Fitter Grade-II, but again without any tangible result.

Against the above back drop, the Petitioner moved the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A No. 1021/94 which on abolition of the said Tribunal has been transferred to this Court and registered as CWP (T) No. 2873 of 2008.

The petition is contested by the Respondents on the following averments set up vide para 6 (k) to 6 (o):

6 (k) In reply to this sub-para, it is submitted thatkeeping in view the act and conduct of the persons, thethen working on daily wages basis were re-designated i9nthe different categories & accordingly they have been regularised in the respective categories. The orders vide which the rationalisation of the categories were conveyedto the each worker through the concerned Junior Engineers as well as through Notice Board and the applicant has filed the present petition in 1994 which ishopelessly time barred. In reply to this sub-para, it issubmitted that the said Ashok Kumar and Kumar Singhwere re-designated/promoted on daily wages basis keepingin view the act and conduct and it is wrong on the part ofthe applicant to allege that he had come to know this factonly in 1994. Whereas the factual is that re-designation-promotion orders were circulated through the possible media i.e. through the concerned J.E and as well as through the Notice Board.

6 (M) In reply to this sub-para, it is submitted thatShri Ashok Kumar and Kumar Singh were issued the Muster-Rolls of Fitter keeping in view their act and conduct adjudged by the committee constituted for thesame on 31.3.88. It is further submitted that the dailywages workers seniority list maintained categorywise andthe name of these persons were included in the senoritylist of Fitter from the respective dates. As such they wereregularized accordingly w.e.f. 1.1.1994. Whereas the applicant is working as a helper on daily wages basis priorto his regularization and his name is appearing in theseniority list. As such he has rightly been regularized as aHelper on work charged basis.

6 (o) In reply to these sub-paras, it is submittedthat vide order dated 27.8.91, Sh. Kuldeep Singh and HansRaj promoted/re-designated as a Fitter keeping in viewtheir solely act and conduct and it is wrong on the part ofthe applicant who allege that they have been promoted onthe grounds they promoted due to the reason that they were ignored in 1988 are not correct. It is further submitted that for promotion of a daily cadre worker, onlythe seniority of the workmanship, devotion towards duty,punctuality is given weightage and these persons werefulfilling these criteria were promoted. Moreover, the applicant has filed the present petition after thought afteralmost 3 years of passing the interim orders. As such the present petition is not maintainable.

Admittedly, services of the Petitioner have since been regularized as helper vide order dated 28.9.1995, Annexure A-9 w.e.f. 1.1.1994. However, the fact remains that persons junior to him, namely, Ashok Kumar and Kumar Singh referred to hereinabove who were also working as daily wage helper were re designated as Fitter Grade-II and Fitter Grade-I, respectively, vide office order Annexure A-4 as far as back on 31.3.1988. No plausible explanation is coming forth for ignoring the claim of the Petitioner and more so when as per Seniority list, Annexure A-1 he was Senior to the said Ashok Kumar and Kumar Singh.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed with a direction to Respondents No. 1 and 2/competent authority to consider the case of the Petitioner for re-designation as Fitter Grade I/II and thereafter regularization as such on and w.e.f. 31.3.1988 when his Juniors, Kumar Singh and Ashok Kumar, were re-designated as such, vide office order of the even date, Annexure A-4, along with consequential benefits such as arrears accruing on account of difference of pay etc. within three months from today.

In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending CMP(s), if any.