Himachal Pradesh High Court
Amolak Ram vs Municipal Corporation And ... on 12 August, 2021
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Satyen Vaidya
REPORTABLE/NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 12th DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN
.
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA.
CWPOA No. 4952 of 2020
Between:-
1. AMOLAK RAM S/O SH. MAKHALI RAM
R/O VILLAGE KEZERYU, POST OFFICE, DELGI,
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT, SHIMLA, H.P.
2. KESHAV RAM S/O LATE SH. JAHANDHA RAM
R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE, DANEWALI,
SUB TEHSIL, NANKHARI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
3. RAMESH THAKUR S/O SH. LACHHI RAM.
R/O VILLAGE JHARECH, POST OFFICE, BEOLIA,
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT, SHIMLA, H.P.
4. SURINDER KUMAR S/O SH. MOOL CHAND,
R/O LOWER KAITHU, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT,
SHIMLA, H.P.
5. LEKH RAJ S/O SH. BHAGAT RAM,
R/O VILLAGE THAROG, POST OFFICE, CHALAL,
TEHSIL SUNNI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
6. RAJEEV S/O SH. SANT RAM,
R/O SURGA BHAWAN, RAM NAGAR,
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT, SHIMLA, H.P.
7. PARAS RAM S/O SH. HARASU RAM,
R/O VILLAGE KOTLA, P.O. THACHI,
TEHSIL SUNNI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
8. PRAKASH VIR S/O SH. BRAHMA NAND,
R/O VILLAGE GANEOG, POST OFFICE, NEHRA,
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
......PETITIONERS
(BY SH. BHUVNESH SHARMA & SH. RAMAKANT SHARMA,
ADVOCATES)
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:52:21 :::CIS
2
AND
1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, SHIMLA,
THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER, SHIMLA,
HIMACHAL PRADESH.
2. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, THROUGH ITS
.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (URBAN DEVELOPMENT)
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF H.P. SHIMLA-171002.
....RESPONDENTS.
(MS. REETA THAKUR, ADVOCATE, FOR RESPONDENT NO.1.
SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL, WITH SH. VINOD
THAKUR, SH. HEMANSHU MSRA, SH. SHIV PAL MANHANS,
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERALS AND SH. BHUPINDER
THAKKUR, DEPUTY
RESPONDENT NO.2.)
ADVOCATE
toGENERAL, FOR
__________________________________________________________________
This petition coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble
Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, passed the following:
ORDER
By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed
for the following substantive reliefs:
I) That the impugned office order dated 30.06.2018 at Annexure
P-9, whereby the claim of the applicant has been rejected, may
kindly be quashed and set-aside.
II) That the respondents may kindly be directed to confer the
status of the post of Supervisor upon the applicants w.e.f. from
the date of completion of 10 years of daily wages services with
all consequential benefits towards fixation of pay, seniority and
arrears of salary.
2. Petitioners were engaged as daily waged Mates with
effect from September, 1987, August 1984, August 1982,
September 1987, June 1985, July 1986, May 1985 and
.
September 1986 respectively. Their services were regularized with
effect from 29.01.1998, 4.7.1996, 13.1.1994, 29.1.1998,
4.7.1996, 29.1.1998, 4.7.1996 and 29.1.1998 respectively.
Petitioners after prolonged litigation were granted the benefit of
the post of Supervisor w.e.f. 18.4.2007. This benefit was accorded
3.
to petitioners vide office order dated 9.9.2014.
On 18.9.2014, learned Single Judge of this Court
passed judgment in CWP No.2521 of 2012, titled Ramesh
Chand Thakur vs. Municipal Corporation and thereby directed
the grant of benefit of regularization to petitioner in that case on
completion of 8 years of service. This judgment was assailed by
Municipal Corporation, Shimla in LPA No. 55 of 2015
unsuccessfully. In LPA No.55 of 2015, a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court while dismissing the appeal of Municipal Corporation,
Shimla clarified that the payment of arrears would be restricted
to three years prior to filing of the writ petition.
4. Consequent upon passing of aforesaid judgment in
LPA No. 55 of 2015, Municipal Corporation, Shimla granted the
benefit of regularization to Sh. Ramesh Chand Thakur, w.e.f.
16.4.2001 in the category of Supervisor. Petitioners have
contended that on the basis of the benefits granted to Sh. Ramesh
.
Chand Thakur, similar benefits were allowed by the Municipal
Corporation, Shimla to other similarly situated persons including
Ram Rattan etc. Petitioners being similarly situated also claimed
the same and similar benefits but were not allowed by the
respondent-Municipal Corporation, Shimla.
5.
Petitioners approached the Himachal Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 6048 of 2016, which
came to be decided on 8.9.2017. The learned Tribunal was
pleased to pass the following orders:
"4. The applicants claim the benefit of judgments rendered by
the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 2521
of 2012, Shri Ramesh Chand Thakur versus Municipal
Corporation, decided on 18.09.2014, Annexure A-5, as
upheld in LPA No.55 of 2015, Municipal Corporation, Shimla
versus Ramesh Chand Thakur, decided on 07.04.2016,
Annexure A-6 and CWP No. 2415 of 2012, Mathu Ram versus
Municipal Corporation and others, decided on 31.7.2014.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the said
judgments have become final and implemented also.
5. If that be so, the present original application is disposed of
with a direction to the respondents to consider the respective
cases of the applicants also, strictly in view of the principles
laid down in the judgments cited hereinabove, within a period
of two months from today. The applicants shall produce a
certified copy of this order as well as copy of the judgments
referred to above, before the respondents/competent
authority within a week."
.
6. On 30.6.2018, respondent No.1 rejected the claims
of the petitioners. Aggrieved against such rejection, petitioners
again approached the learned Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 4622
of 2018. On closure of the learned Tribunal, the said O.A. stood
transferred to this Court and has been registered as CWPOA No.
4952 of 2020. r
7. Petitioners have alleged discrimination at the
hands of the respondents. Their case is that initially also they
were granted the benefit of the post of Supervisor w.e.f. 18.4.2007
on the basis of such benefit granted to Sh. Ramesh Chand Thakur
and also Sh. Ram Rattan etc. Petitioners contended that since
they were similarly situated to Sh. Ramesh Chand Thakur and
Sh. Ram Rattan etc., the action of respondent No.1 in rejecting
their claim vide office order dated 30.6.2018 (Annexure P-9) is
wrong, illegal and discriminatory.
8. Respondent No.1 in its reply has stated that the
petitioners were considered for regularization as Supervisor w.e.f.
18.4.2007 against the created posts of Supervisors as there was
no post of Supervisor existing in Municipal Corporation, Shimla
prior to 18.4.2007. It has also been averred by respondent No.1
.
that the petitioners cannot be allowed to re-agitate the issue of
regularization from retrospective date as they had earlier also
filed legal proceedings in which such claim was not raised.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
have also gone through the records of the case.
10.
The case of the petitioners is mainly based upon the
assertion that since Sh. Ramesh Chand Thakur and Sh. Ram
Rattan etc., who were similarly situated to the petitioners, were
granted the benefits of regularization as Supervisor w.e.f.
16.4.2001, on completion of 8 years of daily waged services,
petitioners cannot be singled out and discriminated in the same
and similar set of facts.
11. We find merit in the contention of petitioners as
respondent No.1 has not been able to carve out a case of placing
petitioners on a separate pedestal than Sh. Ramesh Chand
Thakur and Sh. Ram Rattan etc. Once the benefit of regularization
in service to the aforesaid Sh. Ramesh Chand Thakur and Sh.
Ram Rattan etc. was granted w.e.f. 16.4.2001, the same could
not be denied to the petitioners on the whims of respondent No.1.
Petitioners were granted the benefit of regularization as
.
Supervisors w.e.f. 18.4.2007, only on the same date on which
date Sh. Ramesh Chand Thakur and subsequently to Sh. Ram
Rattan etc. were initially regularized as Supervisors. That being
so, respondent No.1 cannot be subsequently allowed to change its
stand when it comes to grant of the regularization of petitioners
from due date i.e. on completion of requisite period of daily waged
services. The matter in this regard is no more res integra after the
judgment passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Mathu
Ram vs. Municipal Corporation and others, CWP No. 2415 of
2012 dated 31.7.2014 as the same has attained finality having
been upheld even by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As regards the
plea of respondent No.1 with respect to non-existence of posts of
Supervisor before 18.4.2007, that should have been applicable to
Sh. Ramesh Chand Thakur and Sh. Ram Rattan etc. also. Once
the said other persons were given the benefit from date prior to
18.4.2007, the petitioners are also entitled for same treatment.
12. The petition is accordingly allowed, office order
dated 30.6.2018 (Annexure P-9) is quashed and set-aside being
wrong, illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation,
Shimla is directed to confer the status of the post of Supervisor
.
upon the petitioners with effect from the date they completed ten
years of daily waged services with all consequential benefits. It is,
however, clarified that petitioners shall be entitled to the arrears
only for a period of three years prior to filing of this petition
following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jai Dev
SC 2819.
r to
Gupta vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, AIR 1998
13. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms,
also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, with no order
as to costs.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Judge
12th August, 2021 (Satyen Vaidya)
(GR) Judge
