Khamosh Kumar And Another vs Sh. Rugved Thakur
2021 Latest Caselaw 3680 HP

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
                               SHIMLA

                                                           COPCT No. 804 of 2020




                                                                                .
                                                           Decided on: 6.8.2021





    Khamosh Kumar and another                                                        Petitioners.
                           Versus





    Sh. Rugved Thakur                                                       ....Respondent.
    Coram:
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.





    Whether approved for reporting?1

    For the petitioners:                          Mr. M.A Khan, Sr. Advocate with
                                                  Ms. Hem Kanta Kaushal, Advocate.

    For the respondent:                           Mr.  Hemant    Vaid,  Additional

                                                  Advocate General with Mr. Vikrant
                                                  Chandel and Mr. Gaurav Sharma,
                                                  Deputy Advocate Generals.



    Sureshwar Thakur, Judge (Oral)

The hereinafter extracted order was pronounced

on 15.5.2018 by the erstwhile H.P State Administrative Tribunal

upon O.A No. 2627 of 2018:-

" M.A No. 966 of 2018 Heard, allowed and disposed of.

O.A No. 2627 of 2018 Heard. Notice.

Mr. Narender Singh Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. Separate notice to respondent No.3 returnable

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

...2...

within six week to be served through the process

.

serving agency of this Tribunal.

Replies on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 be filed by the next date of hearing.

However in the facts and circumstances and documents filed alongwith the original application, there shall be a direction in the

interim to the respondents/competent authorities to permit the applicants to continue as Data Entry Operators on the same terms and conditions as

before subject to availability of vacancy and

funds, till further orders. List after service/pleadings are complete."

2. However, the petitioners contend that the

directions(supra) as contained therein are intentionally and

willfully breached by the respondent. A perusal of the reply

furnished to the instant petition by the respondent, discloses

that the engagement of the petitioners as Data Entry

Operators, was made by the E-Governance Society, and also

their salaries were liquidated from the funds of, the, E-

Governance Society concerned. Thereupon, the respondent

in its reply contended that the salaries disbursed to the

petitioners, did not emanate, from the Treasury concerned,

...3...

rather disbursement of the salaries to the petitioner was made

.

through, the funds of the E-Governance Society.

3. Further more, it is also contended in the reply to the

petition that for the afore non-availability of funds with the E-

Governance Society concerned, the latter proceeded to

dispense with the services of the petitioners, and, that the

respondent is unable to mete compliance with the order

(supra) as made by the Erstwhile H.P State Administrative

Tribunal.

4. Be that as it may, it is averred in the reply, that the

respondent is not the employer of the petitioners rather the

employer of the petitioners is the E-Governance Society. The

sequel thereof is that the obedience to the afore extracted

order was to be made by the E-Governance Society

concerned. However, the E-Governance Society, the

employer of the petitioners, remains un-impleaded either in

the main petition, nor it is impleaded in the instant petition.

Consequently, both the writ petition and the instant COPCT

are grossly mis-constituted rather for the non-arraying of the

employer of the petitioners.

...4...

5. Nonetheless, the learned counsel for the petitioners

.

has contended that the afore made stand becomes faulty, as

two persons, disclosed in the rejoinder to the reply furnished to

the petition are still continuing to render services under the

respondent. However, any reference of the afore made

reasons in the rejoinder to the reply furnished to the petition,

and theirs working as Data Entry Operators yet cannot be

concluded to be under the E-Governance Society. However,

even if the afore persons detailed in the rejoinder to the reply

furnished to the petition are continuing to render services

under the E-Governance Society, yet, as afore-stated, the

Society concerned remains un-arrayed as a respondent, for its

meteing an answer, whether the afore named persons were

junior to the petitioners, and, that hence an order for

dispensing with the services of the afore named persons was

required to be made, than the employer concerned rather

choosing to disengage the petitioners. Since, as afore-stated

the employer of the petitioners remains un-arrayed in the

array of co-respondents, therefore, it can prima-facie be

concluded that persons (supra) were senior to the petitioners

...5...

and hence their retention in service by the E-Governance

.

Society concerned, and, the latter rather dispensing with the

services of the petitioners both becomes lawful. This Court

does not find any merit in the petition and the same is

accordingly dismissed, and, the contemnor(s) is discharged.

However, any observation (supra) shall not influence the

decision making process appertaining to the main lis, hence

engaging the parties at contest. All pending applications

stand disposed of accordingly.

    6th August, 2021                       ( Sureshwar Thakur),



    (priti)                                      Judge.