CWPOA/2004/2019 on 12 October 2026

1. CWPOA No.4025 of 2020 Sanjeev Mohd.

...Petitioner Versus State of HP and others

...Respondents

2. CWPOA No.2004 of 2019 Sanjeev Mohd.

...Petitioner Versus State of HP and others

...Respondents

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Prem P. Chauhan, Advocate [through video conferencing], in both the petitions. For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General, in both the petitions. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)

Since both these petitions are interlinked, they are being taken up together for final disposal and are being

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

decided by a common judgment.

2. For the purpose of adjudicating the claim of the petitioners, the facts of CWPOA No.2004 of 2019 are being taken up for consideration.

3. The petitioner was initially engaged on daily wage basis on the post of Work Inspector, on compassionate grounds, vide office order dated 01.04.2008. The said appointment, however was subsequently withdrawn vide office order dated 02.04.2008 (Annexure A-1).

4. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order passed by respondent No.3 had approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal’) by filing an O.A. No.1191 of 2008, which came to be transferred to this Court after abolition of the Tribunal and registered as CWP(T) No.925 of 2008, titled, Sanjeev Mohd. vs. State of H.P. & Ors. The said petition was disposed of on 11.05.2010 and order dated 02.04.2008 was set aside with a direction to respondent No.2 to look into the matter afresh, with notice to the petitioner and take appropriate action in accordance with law. After the decision passed by this Court on 11.05.2010, the matter was looked into by respondent No.2 and representation made by the petitioner was partly accepted and he was offered appointment on daily wage basis as Beldar, pursuant to the policy dated 16.08.2005 and clarified in instructions dated 26.04.2006.

5. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order, whereby he was offered the appointment on daily wage basis had approached this Court by way of CWP No.8397 of 2010-J, titled, Sanjeev Mohd. vs. State of HP and others. Vide order dated 25.11.2011, the operation of order dated 25.06.2010 was stayed and respondent No.2 was directed to permit the petitioner to discharge the duties of Work Inspector at 10th Circle, HPPWD Bilaspur within a period of one week of production of certified copy of the order. After passing the order, respondent No.2 had passed an office order dated 15.02.2012 (Annexure P-15) permitting the petitioner to discharge his duties as Work Inspector subject to the final outcome of the Court case arising out of the writ petition preferred by the petitioner and two persons namely Amin Chand and Hari Ram, who were also offered the appointment as Work Inspector. Thereafter, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner came to be disposed of as rendered infructuous on 22.03.2012, in view of the fact that the petitioner was appointed as Work Inspector and had joined his duties. However, the petitioner was given liberty to make a representation to the competent authority for the redressal of his any outstanding grievance.

6. The petitioner after the decision of the writ petition on 22.03.2012, made a representation to the respondents-State to give him seniority and pay from 01.04.2008 as Work Inspector. However, the said representation came to be rejected vide order dated 03.09.2012 (Annexure P-20) with the observation that the petitioner shall be entitled for counting of daily wage period towards continuous service w.e.f. 01.04.2008 till he actually joins the post/work where after on actual basis and no back wages for the period is to be paid to him, because he did not actually performed any work.

7. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order dated 03.09.2012 (Annexure P-20) has approached this Court seeking direction to the respondents to grant him back wages w.e.f. 01.04.2008 along with interest @18%.

8. In the petition, the petitioner has averred that the representation made by the petitioner has wrongly been rejected thereby denying him back wages, which action is illegal, arbitrary, malafide, discriminatory and against the well settled principles of natural justice. It has also been averred that since no notice was issued to the petitioner before withdrawing the office order dated 01.04.2008, the same is violative of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it is settled law that the procedure prescribed for depriving a person of livelihood will be liable to be tested on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and as such prayed for quashing the said order.

9. It has also been averred that the petitioner was not permitted to continue on the post of Work Inspector, despite being similar situated to other individuals, who were given appointments to the said post. Once, the petitioner was deprived of joining, the respondents cannot withheld the due and admissible benefits accruing in his favour, as there was no fault on his part.

10. In the connected writ petition preferred by the petitioner being CWPOA No. 4025 of 2020, he has sought direction to the respondents to regularize his services w.e.f. 01.04.2015 on completion of seven years of service in terms of the policies dated 08.07.2013, 20.06.2014 and 07.05.2015 for all intents and purposes with all consequential benefits including arrears along with interest thereon @18% per annum.

11. The respondents filed reply to CWPOA No. 2004 of 2019 and in the preliminary submissions averred that neither any legal nor any fundamental right of the petitioner has ever been infringed in any manner. Further no cause of action accrued to the petitioner to file and maintain the present writ petition. The petitioner is estopped to file and maintain the present writ petition, as for the same cause of action along with other reliefs, he had earlier filed a CWP No.8397 of 2010, which was decided on 22.03.2012. In the earlier petition, the petitioner had specifically sought relief of arrear of salary for the period w.e.f. 01.04.2008 to 12.02.2012 i.e. from the initial date, but this relief while deciding the writ petition was not granted in his favour, after perusing compliance to interim order and the petitioner never objected to the same when he was re-engaged as Work Inspector instead of Beldar. This amounts to deemed rejection. As such, the petitioner is estopped to rake up this issue again when the entire dispute had attained finality. Under these circumstances, the petition is not maintainable for the reason that to whatever relief the petitioner is entitled, the same stood already granted in his favour by the respondent-Department, on the direction of this Court.

12. It has further been averred that father of the petitioner late Sh.Munshi Ram was serving as a Beldar on daily wage basis with the respondent-Department. He died on 17.06.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation for job on compassionate grounds and he was issued the appointment letter on 01.04.2008, but wrongly for the post of Work Inspector. Subsequently, the said order was withdrawn on 02.04.2008, because of the fact that the petitioner was not eligible for the post of Work Inspector. Thereafter, he had approached this Court by way of CWP No.8397 of 2010 and in terms of the interim direction dated 25.11.2011, the petitioner was offered appointment as Work Inspector on 12.02.2012 and since then he is serving in the respondents-Department as daily waged Work Inspector, but now he intends to get undue advantage of the job provided to him on compassionate grounds and is claiming back wages from the respondents- Department for the period 01.04.2008 to 12.02.2012, whereas he has not rendered his services with the respondents-Department during this period even for a single day. Both the orders passed by this Court on 25.11.2011 and 22.03.2012 neither provide such direction nor have been violated by the respondents-Department, rather whatever relief to which the petitioner was entitled, the same has been granted to him.

13. On merits, it has been averred that the petitioner was not aggrieved by the order dated 02.04.2008. The order dated 01.04.2008 issued in favour of the petitioner was withdrawn on 02.04.2008 because the appointment order has wrongly been issued in his favour. The petitioner was only 10+2 and for appointment on the post of Work Inspector, the diploma is one of the essential requirements. The petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 25.06.2010. Since the father of the petitioner was serving as Beldar/Mason on daily wage basis with the respondents- Department, the petitioner cannot claim his appointment on higher post, which was against the provisions of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules as he was not possessing the qualification prescribed in it. Therefore, the Department at that time had decided that the petitioner was not entitled for the post of Work Inspector on the compassionate grounds in any manner, which this Court held illegal as similar situate persons were earlier also appointed by Superintending Engineer and as such, interim order/direction was implemented. The respondents- Department had also considered the representation made by the petitioner and allowed the same by granting the benefit of seniority to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.2008, but the financial benefits were rightly not given to him, because he did not render his services before the respondents- Department even for a single day before the date of joining on 27.02.2012. On the other hand, he runs an Electronics shop at Bharari, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur and as such not unemployed between the said period and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

14. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully.

15. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was offered appointment as Work Inspector, vide office order dated 01.04.2008, however, the said order was subsequently withdrawn on 02.04.2008. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order of withdrawal of his appointment had approached the Tribunal by way of original application and in reply thereto, a categorical stand was taken by the

respondents that the Work Inspectors were already working in the circle more than its requirement and there was no scope for accommodating additional Work Inspector, as such, the appointment of the petitioner was withdrawn by them. However, the said stand taken by the respondents- Department was based on false statement, as can be gathered from the order dated 11.05.2010 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Division Bench when the writ petition preferred by the petitioner came to be disposed of after setting aside the order dated 02.04.2008 with a direction to respondent No.2 to look into the matter afresh with notice to the petitioner and take appropriate action in the matter. The judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 11.05.2010 in CWP(T) No.925 of 2008, is reproduced hereunder:- “The challenge is to Annexure A-1. As per Annexure A-1, the appointment offered to the petitioner was withdrawn. The petitioner was offered appointment on compassionate grounds as per the order dated 1.4.2008. The same was withdrawn as per the impugned order dated 2.4.2008. There is no case for the respondents that the petitioner is not eligible but the only contention is that there was no post to accommodate the petitioner.

2. Based on the information obtained under the R.T.I. Act, from the Office of the Executive Engineer, Bilaspur, it is seen that a vacancy was available between 1.4.2008 to 17.12.2008. Therefore, Annexure A-1 is set aside with the direction to the second respondent-competent authority to look into the matter afresh, with notice to the petitioner and take appropriate action in accordance with law in the matter within a period of one month from the date of production of the copy of this judgment.

3. The Writ Petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.”

16. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment reveals that the appointment of petitioner to the post of Work Inspector was withdrawn only for the reason that there was no post to accommodate him, whereas the petitioner had placed on record the information received under the RTI that a vacancy was available between 01.04.2008 to 17.12.2008. Despite the said fact having taken note of by the Division Bench of this Court, the claim raised by the petitioner came to be rejected by the respondents-Department on the ground that though he was eligible for appointment on daily wage basis, on compassionate grounds, but not in the category of Work Inspector and thus he was offered the appointment as Beldar, pursuant to the policy of the Government.

17. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order had approached this Court by way of CWP No.8397 of 2010-J and this Court vide order dated 25.11.2011, after considering the fact that the respondents had offered the appointment to one Amin Chand son of Ranjeet Singh with the qualification of matric and 10+2 to the post of Work Inspector along with two other persons having the same qualification namely Hari Ram and Relu Ram, had directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to discharge the duties of Work Inspector at 10th Circle, HPPWD, Bilaspur, within a period of one week after the production of certified copy of the order. On the categorical direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner for discharging the duties of Work Inspector within a period of one week, respondent No.2 had passed an order on 15.02.2012 (Annexure P-15), thereby permitting him to discharge the duties of Work Inspector, subject to final outcome of Court case. When the writ petition was listed on 22.03.2012, this Court after considering the fact that the petitioner has now been appointed as Work Inspector and has joined his duties, disposed of the petition as rendered infructuous. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to make a representation to the competent authority for the redressal of his any outstanding grievance. The relevant part of the order dated

22.03.2012, passed in CWP No.8397 of 2010-J, is reproduced hereinunder:- “Since the petitioner has now been appointed as Work Inspector and he has joined his duties, the present petition is rendered infructuous. Consequently, the same is dismissed having become infructuous, so also the pending application(s), if any). However, the petitioner is at liberty to make a representation to the competent authority for the redressal of his any outstanding grievance. No costs.”

18. A perusal of the aforesaid order passed by this Court reveals that the petitioner was granted liberty to make a representation to the competent authority for redressal of his any outstanding grievance. However, after making a representation by the petitioner, his claim for the grant of back wages came to be rejected, vide office order dated 03.09.2012 (Annexure P-20), though he has been held entitled for counting of daily wage period towards continuous service w.e.f. 01.04.2008, till he actually joined the post/work where after on active basis.

19. The precise grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted by the learned counsel representing him is that the petitioner could not perform his duties to the post of Work Inspector for the reason that the appointment order issued in his favour on 01.04.2008 was withdrawn on 02.04.2008 and since there was no fault on his part, he cannot be deprived of wages.

20. The aforesaid contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be accepted for the reason that once the respondents-Department had offered appointment to other persons, as has been taken note of in the order dated 25.11.2011, wherein one Amin Chand was offered appointment to the post of Work Inspector, as per letter dated 05.08.2010, the petitioner, who was also offered the appointment on compassionate ground to the post of Work Inspector on 01.04.2008 was not permitted to discharge his duties only for the reason that the said order was withdrawn and thus the petitioner who has been denied to perform his duties, cannot be denied the entire wages of the post of Work Inspector w.e.f. 01.04.2008, more especially when he was litigating in the Court and the Court while ultimately disposing of the petition on 22.03.2012 had given the liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority for the redressal of his any outstanding grievances.

21. Learned

Additional

Advocate

General representing the respondents has vehemently argued that once the petitioner has not worked on the post of Work Inspector w.e.f. 01.04.2008 to 12.02.2012, he is not entitled to any wages for the said period. However, the said contention cannot be accepted for the reason that the petitioner was not allowed to perform the duties of the post of Work Inspector and in such circumstances, he cannot be denied the benefit of the entire wages, especially when the respondents, even after the direction given by this Court as per order dated 25.11.2011, to the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioner within a period of one week, he was not permitted to discharge the duties of Work Inspector. The office order dated 15.02.2012 was issued by respondent No.2 after more than 3 months. It is not even the case of the respondents that the post was not lying vacant. Once the post was lying vacant and further the respondents had offered the appointment to other similarly situate persons, who were having the same qualification prior to passing the order dated 15.02.2012, the petitioner though not worked w.e.f. 01.04.2008 till 12.02.2012, but is entitled to 50% of the wages, keeping in view the fact that he was litigating in the Court, though has not performed the duties of the Work Inspector.

22. Learned Additional Advocate General also argued that since the petitioner was not earlier granted the relief of wages as claimed, he is not entitled to the same. However, the said contention cannot be accepted for the reason that the Court had given liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the competent authority for the redressal of his any outstanding grievances. It is only after making representation by the petitioner, respondent No.2 passed an order on 03.09.2012 when the petitioner was entitled for counting of daily wage period towards continuous service w.e.f. 01.04.2008. Therefore, the petition is not maintainable.

23. Learned counsel representing the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalya (D.ED.) and others, (2013) 10 SCC 324 and strenuously argued that in case of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuous service and back wages is the normal rule. I have gone through the said judgment and the same is not attracted to the facts of the present case for the reason that in the present case, the respondents while filing reply to the petition had specifically mentioned that the petitioner was running an Electronics shop at Bharari, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur (HP) and as such was not unemployed during the said period. No doubt, there is no documentary evidence placed on record by the respondents while filing the reply, but at the same time, the petitioner has also not disputed the said fact for the reason that he did not choose to file rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents. Further, in the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court had come to the conclusion that the petitioner has either to plead or prove that he was not unemployed. In the present case, there is no murmur in the entire petition that the petitioner during the aforesaid period was not gainfully employed and, therefore, to balance the equity as well as keeping in view the fact that the petitioner did not perform the duties on the post of Work Inspector, he is held entitled to 50% of the back wages w.e.f. 01.04.2008 till 12.02.2012.

24. In another petition instituted by the petitioner, he is claiming the regularization after completion of 7 years’ service in terms of the policies of the State Government dated 08.07.2013, 20.06.2014 and 07.05.2015 with all

consequential benefits. The respondents while filing reply to the petition, have not disputed the issuance of the said policy decisions, but only the plea which has been taken is that the petitioner has not rendered any service with the respondents-Department during the period 01.04.2008 to 12.02.2012, for a single day. Further, his services have come to be regularized in accordance with the prevalent policy of the Government w.e.f. 30.05.2017. However, this plea cannot be accepted for the reason that once the respondents had accepted the petitioner to be an appointee w.e.f. 01.04.2008, he is entitled to regularization of his services immediately after completion of 7 years’ service w.e.f. 01.04.2008 as extended to other employees in terms of the aforesaid policies.

25. As already discussed above, the petitioner was prevented to discharge his duties on the post of Work Inspector and, therefore, he cannot be denied the benefit of regularization excluding the period when he was not allowed to discharge the duties. If it is allowed, it will amount to injustice to the petitioner inasmuch as the said action would be arbitrary and discriminatory for the reason that the similarly situate persons, who had completed 7 years’

service on the posts of Work Inspector w.e.f. 01.04.2008 have been regularized and as such the action on the part of the respondents is also in total infraction of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

26. Consequently, both the petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as Work Inspector immediately upon completion of 7 years’ service, taking the date of his appointment as 01.04.2008 with all consequential benefits. The respondents are directed only to release 50% of the back wages to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.2008 to 12.02.2012. The respondents are further directed to release the arrears in favour of the petitioner within a period of six months from today and in case the same are not released, he shall be paid interest @6% per annum from today till actual payment. No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

th October

, 2026

( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge