Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 14.11.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 14 November, 2024
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
2024:HHC:11422
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
LPA No. 202 of 2024
Decided on: 14.11.2024.
________________________________________________________
Bhagmal .... Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents.
________________________________________________________
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge
1
Whether approved for reporting? No
________________________________________________________
For the appellant : Mr. Jagan Nath, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate
General.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral)
Heard.
2. Aggrieved against judgment dated 30.04.2024 passed by
learned Single Judge in CWP No. 2911 of 2024 whereby the writ
petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed, the appellant has
preferred the instant Letters Patent Appeal.
3. The appellant was employed by the erstwhile Agro
Industrial Packaging India Limited (for short "AIPIL") as Fork Lift
Operator on daily wage basis. Since 1995, he had worked in above
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 2024:HHC:11422
capacity with AIPIL till 2009 by completing 240 days in each
calendar year. As the AIPIL was proposed to be disbanded, its
employees were adjusted in different departments of the State
Government. The appellant was adjusted/deployed in the Government
Polytechnic College, Rohru, District Shimla against vacant post of
Class-IV vide office order dated 08.07.2009 purely on secondment
basis for one year.
4. The appellant joined at Government Polytechnic College,
Rohru on 30.07.2009 and thereafter absented himself from duties till
02.02.2010. He intermittently worked from February 2010 to
26.07.2010 and thereafter again absented himself from duties.
5. The appellant submitted an application dated 16.06.2022
to the Director, Technical Education with a prayer to resume his
service on the ground that he was prevented from joining the duties
on account of his ill-health and adverse family circumstances. After
taking a lenient view, the Director, Technical Education, Himachal
Pradesh, vide order dated 22.09.2022, allowed the appellant to resume
his service against the post of Class-IV purely on secondment basis by
condoning his absence/break period with the condition that appellant
would not be entitled to any financial and service benefit on account
3 2024:HHC:11422
of his absence/break period.
6. The appellant accepted the above offer and subsequently,
approached the writ court in the month of March, 2024 seeking
directions against the respondents to deploy the appellant as Class-III
employee on secondment basis and further to regularize his service
from the date when he had completed 8 years of continuous service
with the AIPIL.
7. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed
by the appellant on the grounds that the appellant had failed to justify
his inordinately long absence from July, 2010 to 2022. The plea that
the appellant was prevented from joining the duties by health
conditions has been disbelieved on the ground that the medical record
produced by the appellant was w.e.f. July 2018 onwards and it was
not accompanied by any expert opinion to suggest that the alleged
ailment of the appellant deterred him from joining the duties. Learned
Single Judge further noticed that the appellant or his family members
had not even intimated the employer regarding his ill health at any
point of time.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to
contradict the factual position except by making oral submission that
4 2024:HHC:11422
the appellant suffered from serious mental health issues since 2010.
He further submitted that the appellant was not able to get medical
assistance till 2018, when his younger sister came to his rescue and
finally his ailment was treated.
9. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the
appellant and also by perusing the available records, we find no
reason to take a different view than the one taken by learned Single
Judge. No fault can be found with the finding of fact arrived at by the
writ Court. That being so, the unduly unexplained long absence of
appellant from duties for about 12 years, that too, without any
reasonable cause clearly disentitles the appellant to claim reliefs as
sought in the writ petition. It appears that the appellant is trying to
take undue benefit of compassion and magnanimity shown by
respondent No.3 by allowing him to resume his service.
10. In result, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is
dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Acting Chief Justice
14th November, 2024 (Satyen Vaidya)
(GR) Judge
