Narinder Singh vs The Pepsu Road Transport Corporation ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 20590 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Narinder Singh vs The Pepsu Road Transport Corporation ... on 20 November, 2024

                                  Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153439


                                                                             1
CWP-27782
    27782 of 2019



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH

                                      27782 of 2019
                                 CWP-27782
                                 Reserved on: 13.11.2024
                                 Pronouncedd on
                                             on: 20.11.2024
Narinder Singh
                                                               ......Petitioner
                   Versus

The Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another
                                                            ......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR

Argued by:: - Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

             Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate, and
             Mr. Lalit Goyal, Advocate, for the respondents.

NAMIT KUMAR, J.

1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under

Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of order

dated 18.07.2019 (Annexure P-8), P 8), whereby pay of the petitioner has

been refixed and reduced and for restraining the respondents from

making any recovery.

2. Undisputed facts of the case are tthat the petitioner joined

the services of the Pepsu Raod Transport Corporation (hereinafter

referred to as 'the ' Corporation') as driver on contract basis for two

years w.e.f. 31.03.2001 to 30.03.2003. Thereafter, his services were

terminated vide order dated dated 14.01.2002 on the allegation of causing

damage to the crown wheel of the bus and having misbehaved with the

service engineer. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause of the

contract agreement and challenged the order dated 14.01.2002.

Consequently, tly, the designated arbitrator entered into the reference and

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153439

CWP-27782 27782 of 2019

after examining the whole record, passed award dated 06.06.2002 06.06.2002, vide

which the order of termination dated 14.01.2002 was set aside and the

petitioner was held not entitled for any wages for the period his

contract remained terminated and further an amount of Rs.6370/ Rs.6370/- was

ordered to be recovered from the petitioner fo for the loss caused by him

to the respondent-Corporation.

respondent In pursuance to the said award,

petitioner ner joined his duty on 18.06.2002 18.06.200 after depositing the amount of

Rs.6370/-.

3. Some of the contractual employees of the Corporation had

approached this Court by b filing CWP No.8240 8240 of 2008 - Dalbir Singh

and others v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala through its

Managing Director and another - for regularization of their services.

The said writ petition was allowed by this Court Court, vide judgment dated

22.03.2010,, and those contractual employees were ordered to be

regularized on completion of 18 months' of their service. The

respondent--Corporation Corporation also regularised the services of the petitioner

vide order dated 11.03.2011 w.e.f. 01.10.2002 i.e. on completion of 18

months' service from the date of his initial appointment and thereafter

vide order dated 23.07.2013 (Annexure P P-4) his pay was refixed.

Thereafter, petitioner was issued a show-cause show cause notice dated 08.06.2018

(Annexure P-5) P as to why the date of regularization gularization be not changed

from 01.10.2002 to 13.12.2003, by counting the period of 18 months

from 13.06.2002. The petitioner submitted reply to the show show-cause

notice. Thereafter, another show-cause show cause notice dated 27.05.2019

(Annexure P-6) P was issued for changing the date of regularization from

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153439

CWP-27782 27782 of 2019

01.10.2002 to 04.03.2003 by excluding the period, the petitioner

remained out of service, and for recovery of excess amount paid to him.

The petitioner submitted reply dated 18.06.2019 (Annexure P P-7) to the

said show--cause cause notice. Thereafter, vide order date 18.07.2019

(Annexure P-8), P 8), the date of regularization of the petitioner has been

changed from 01.10.2002 to 04.03.2003 and excess payment made to

him has been ordered to be recovered. The said order has been

impugned mpugned in the present petition.

4. Written statement on behalf of the respondents has been

filed wherein facts as stated above have not been disputed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

date of regularization of the petitioner has wrongly been changed from

01.10.2002 to 04.03.2003 by excluding the period from 14.01.2002 to

17.06.2002 and consequently, his pay has also been reduced which is

illegal and arbitrary as the award passed by the arbitrator dated

06.06.2002 has wrongly been been interpreted by the respondent respondent-

Corporation. He has submitted that once the order of termination of

services of the petitioner dated 14.01.2002 has been set aside, the

abovesaid period cannot be excluded from the service of the petitioner.

6. Per contra,, learned counsel for the respondents has

submitted that since the petitioner was working on contractual basis

and he has been denied wages for the said period by the arbitrator,

therefore, the said period has rightly been excluded from the service of

the petitioner and consequently his date of regularization has been

changed from 01.10.2002 to 04.03.2003.

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153439

CWP-27782 27782 of 2019

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record.

8. Recovery from the petitioner in pursuance to impugned

order dated 18.07.2019 18.07.201 (Annexure P-8)

8) has been stayed by this Court

vide order dated 26.09.2019. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent

to give reference to award dated 06.06.2002 06.06.2002, passed by the arbitrator,

and the concluding para of the same reads as under: -

"After goingg through the documents placed on the file, it has been revealed that the General Manager, PRTC, Chandigarh depot revoked the agreement on the ground that the claimant caused loss to the Corporation to the tune of Rs.6370/- on account of causing damage to the crown wheel of the bus and misbehaviour with the Service Engineer. After examining the record it has been revealed that in the Job Card dated 2.12.2001 some defect of shaft nosing was recorded. I also agree with the plea of claimant that any mechanical al defect can develop at any time but it was the duty of the driver to check the bus before proceeding on route that the bus was defect free. However, I take a lenient view and accept the claim application of the petitioner partly and set aside the office order No.1121 dated 14.1.2002. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any wages for the period his contract remained terminated. An amount of Rs.6370/ Rs.6370/- is ordered to be recovered covered from the claimant on account of loss caused to the Corporation by the negligent act of the claimant."

9. Perusal of the above shows that the claim application of

the petitioner has been partly accepted and termination order dated

14.01.2002 has been set aside without any wages for the period he

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153439

CWP-27782 27782 of 2019

remained out of service.

service. In pursuance to the said award, petitioner was

allowed to rejoin his duty on 18.06.2002. It is not the case of the

respondents that after the passing of the award dated 06.06.2002,

petitioner has been given fresh appointment. Once the termination of

the petitioner has been set aside, the natural consequence is that the

petitioner would be entitled for continuity of service and the period he

remained out of service on account of wrongful termination, which has

been set aside by the arbitrator, shall be counted for the purpose of

regularization and pay fixation.

10. The findings given above find support from the judgment

of this Court in Bhupinder Singh v. Pepsu Road Transport

Corporation (PRTC) and others, 2023(3) PLR 409

11. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. Impugned

order dated 18.07.2019 (Annexure P-8) P is quashed and set aside and the

respondents are directed to treat the date of regularization of the

petitioner as 01.10.2002 instead of 04.03.2003 and refix his pay

accordingly. Necessary exercise shall be carried out within a period of

two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

                                                (NAMIT KUMAR)
20.11.2024                                         JUDGE
R.S.

             Whether speaking/reasoned          :     Yes/No

             Whether Reportable                 :     Yes/No




                                   5 of 5