Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP-T/2968/2008 of SUNITA KUMARI Vs STATE on 29 December 2008
Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioner. Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A . G. for the respondents. CWP(T) No. 2968/2008 (OA No.60/1996) The applicant filed O.A. No. 60/1996 before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Shimla. The applicant has filed the petition
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.
29.12.2008
Present: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioner. Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A. G. for the respondents.
CWP(T) No. 2968/2008 (OA No.60/1996)
The applicant filed O.A. No. 60/1996 before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Shimla.
The applicant has filed the petition seeking following relief:- “(i) To regularize the services of the applicant as Chowkidar forthwith in view of Mool Raj Upadyay’s judgment delivered by Apex Court of the land.
(ii) Directions may very kindly be issued to the respondents to pay equal wages for equal work done by the applicant for the previous years.
(iii) Impugned action of the respondents in taking the work of the chowkidar and paying a sum of Rs.150/- PM may very kindly be quashed and set-aside.
(iv) Any other or further order as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case may also very kindly be passed in favour of the applicant and against the respondents, in the interest of law and justice.”
According to the applicant, he was engaged as daily wage chowkidar w.e.f. 1969 onwards as his name was duly reflected in the muster rools which is evident from the certificates (Annexure A-2) issued by the Range Forest Officer, Forest Range, Kanda. His services were allegedly discontinued and, as such, he had to file Original Application No.718/1992 before the State Administrative Tribunal. Vide interim order dated 10.6.1992, the Tribunal had directed the State for reinstatement of the applicant. The said petition was allegedly disposed of on 5.7.1993. Copy of the said order is not on record. The applicant has further alleged that for extraneous considerations the respondents have started paying him Rs.150/- per month.
In the reply, the State has categorically denied the correctness of the certificates (Annexure A-2 ) as they do not tally with the record. According to the State, there is no sanctioned post of regular/full time chowkidar and, as such, the services could not be regularized. In any event, the applicant does not fulfil the criteria laid down by the State for regularization. He has not worked for 240 days in any calendar year. The applicant is stated to have left the services but, however, after passing of the interim order by the Tribunal the applicant was re-engaged as part time chowkidar for one hour duty and, as such, is being paid Rs.150/- per month.
In view of the disputed question of facts, particularly with regard to the correctness of certificates (Annexure A-2) and also the fact that as to whether the applicant had completed 240 days in a calendar year. I am not inclined to interfere. The applicant being a workman can take recourse to appropriate remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The prayer of the applicant for regularization cannot be considered by this Court.
With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of.
December 29, 2008
(rana)
( Sanjay Karol ), Judge.