Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWPOA/5478/2019 on 29 December 2022
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWPOA No.5478 of 2019 Decided on: 29.12.2022 Suresh Kumar
… Petitioner. Versus Zila Parishad & another … Respondents.
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. P.D. Nanda, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Dixit Sahotra, Advocate, vice Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.1. M/s Sumesh Raj, Dinesh Thakur and Sanjeev Sood, Additional Advocates General, for respondent No.2State, Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “i) To declare the action of the respondent in not regularizing the services of the applicant to the post of Secretary (Gram Panchayat) from 31.8.2015, the date of his juniors were regularized, as arbitrary, illegal and un constitutional.
ii) to direct the respondent to regularize the services of the applicant as Secretary (Gram Panchayat) from 31.8.2015 with all consequential benefits including arrear of pay with interest and cost of litigation.”
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
is of the considered view that the relief being sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted to him. The fact of the matter is that on account of FIR which has been lodged against the petitioner as also other coaccused, the case of the petitioner for regularization though was considered by the Department concerned, but result thereof has been kept in a sealed cover. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner was initially engaged a Panchayat Secretary on parttime basis on 12.10.1999 and brought on fixed remuneration in the year 2007. In terms of the averments made in the petition, he was appointed as a Panchayat Secretary on contract basis vide Memorandum dated 22.06.2009 (Annexure A1). The FIR in issue, i.e. FIR No.13 of 2010, dated 14.08.2010 was registered in Police Station Stage Vigilance and AntiCorruption Bureau, Solan, District Solan, H.P., under the Provisions of under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 511, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegation against the petitioner is with regard to abusing his position as a Panchayat Secretary.
3. Be that as it may, the Court is not making any observation with regard to the FIR and ultimately, it is for learned Trial Court to see as to whether the allegations levelled against the accused are having some merit or not, but taking into consideration the peculiar facts involved in the case, this Court does not finds the act of respondentDepartment of deferring the decision with regard to regularization of the petitioner either arbitrary or harsh. Ultimately, if the petitioner is acquitted in the trial, but natural, consequences will ensue and in case he is convicted, then also consequences shall ensue.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite the fact that the FIR was registered in the year 2010 and till date no progress has been made in the trial is concerned, all that this Court can observe is that the petitioner can always approach the appropriate Court for redressal of said grievance of his.
5. Accordingly, in view of above observation, this writ petition is closed, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge December 29, 2022 (Rishi)