Himachal Pradesh High Court
Saroj Kumari vs . Nisha Singh on 1 June, 2023
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
Saroj Kumari vs. Nisha Singh
.
COPCT No. 137 of 2020
01.06.2023 Present: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Rakesh
Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. R.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General, for
respondents.
It has been informed that now Mr. Rajiv Sharma is the
Secretary of the Ayush Health Department (Ayurveda Health) to the
Government of Himachal Pradesh and Mr. Vinay Singh is the Director
of Ayush Health Department to the Government of Himachal Pradesh.
On oral request of learned counsel for petitioner, both of
them are arrayed as respondents No.3 and 4. Registry is directed to
carry out the necessary corrections and petitioner is also directed to file
amended memo of parties within one week.
Notice upon newly added respondents is served through
learned Deputy Advocate General who waives service and accepts
notice on their behalf with prayer to grant time to have instructions/to
file response.
On 2nd July, 2020, time was granted to respondents to
demonstrate as to how and in what manner the case of petitioner is
different from petitioner in CWP No. 811 of 2011 with further direction
that in case it is found by concerned authority that the petitioner is
similarly situated, then present incumbent holding the post, responsible
for compliance, may also take steps to purge the contempt, if any,
failing which the said Officer may also be liable for contempt.
Thereafter, on 12.12.2022 matter was adjourned on
.
request made on behalf of respondents in terms of order dated 2.7.2020.
Today, during hearing the matter, learned counsel for
petitioner has also referred judgments of this Court passed in CWPOA
No.1077 of 2019 titled Nitin Kumar vs. State of HP, CWP No.5090 of
2022 with connected matters titled Umesh Jaswal vs. State of HP and
others and CWP No. 4299 of 2019 titled Pushpa Devi and others vs.
Himachal Pradesh University decided on 22.08.2022, 19.12.2022 and
16.08.2019 respectively wherein similarly situated persons i.e.
physically disabled persons appointed on temporary basis were directed
to be appointed on regular basis from their initial appointment and
orders in those cases have been complied with by respondents.
In present case, as also recorded in impugned rejection
order dated 18.06.2016, Annexure C-2, petitioner was appointed by
adopting due process subject to fulfillment of various conditions
applicable under R&P Rules, but on temporary basis i.e. on daily wages
basis, whereas according to Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995,
physically disabled persons are to be appointed on regular basis from
the initial date of appointment. The ratio laid down and followed in the
above referred judgments on the basis of pronouncement of the Apex
Court is the same.
With aforesaid observations read with order dated 2nd July,
2020, further four weeks' time is granted to respondents including
respondents No.3 and 4 to take remedial steps by correcting the mistake
to purge the contempt because rejection of case of petitioner vide order
.
dated 18.06.2016 by respondent No.2, prima facie, is in defiance of
verdict of Court because similarity of petitioner was to be judged with
respect to physical disability, qualification and fulfillment of conditions
of R&P Rules, which have already been considered and thereafter
petitioner has been appointed. Therefore, the rejection of case of
petitioner by respondent No.2 is misconceived which requires to be
corrected and in absence of correction of mistake, it shall be construed
that mistake is not bonafide but is willful and intentional defiance of
orders of the Court.
List on 3rd July, 2023.
June 01, 2023 (Vivek Singh Thakur)
(ms) Judge
