Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 388 (HP)

MAYADHAR v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2009-04-28

RAJIV SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral).:-The petitioner was engaged as daily waged Beldar on 1.5.1988. His services were orally terminated on 1.5.1990. He approached this Court by way of C.W.P. No. 600 of 1996. On 29.4.1996, this Court delivered the following judgment: “The petitioner was initially engaged on daily as Beldar on 1.5.1988 but he was disengaged w.e.f. 1.5.1990. After lapse of long period, we are not inclined to pass any judicial direction. We direct the writ petitioner to file a representation before the Executive Engineer, B&R Division, Karsog within one month from today and the same shall be disposed of within one month by respondent No.2. If a person junior to the petitioner has been appointed in the year 1991, the petitioner shall also be given the similar benefit. A speaking order shall be passed. Liberty is also granted to the petitioner to approach this Court again, if aggrieved. With the above direction, the petition is disposed of.” 2. In sequel to judgment dated 29.4.1996, the petitioner was re-instated with effect from 29.6.1996. He was neither granted any back wages nor seniority. His precise case is that the persons, namely, Lala Ram, Budhi Singh, Nant Ram, Hukam Chand and Hari Singh, who were junior to him have been regularized before him. The case of the State is that the petitioner had abandoned his job from 1990 and had approached this Court only in the year 1996 by way of C.W.P. No. 600 of 1996. 3. Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Advocate has strenuously argued that the period with effect from 1996 should be counted towards the seniority and he should be regularized before Lala Ram, Budhi Singh, Nant Ram, Hukam Chand and Hari Singh. 4. The learned Deputy Advocate General submits that the petitioner cannot be granted the benefit of service from 1990 to 1996. 5. I have heard the parties and perused the record carefully. 6. The petitioner was engaged in the year 1988. He abandoned job in the year 1990. He was reinstated pursuant to intervention of the Court in 1996. In the meantime, the rights of other parties including the persons mentioned in the petition crystalised and they were regularized before the petitioner. The Court had directed the petitioners to file representation before the Executive Engineer, B&R Division, Karsog. He has decided the same. In sequel thereto, the petitioner was offered re-engagement. In the meantime, the rights of other parties including the persons mentioned in the petition crystalised and they were regularized before the petitioner. The Court had directed the petitioners to file representation before the Executive Engineer, B&R Division, Karsog. He has decided the same. In sequel thereto, the petitioner was offered re-engagement. His appointment was to be treated afresh and he could not claim the benefit of his services with effect from 1990 to 1996. The Court had also not directed to grant the petitioner seniority or back wages at the time of disposal of the writ petition on 29.4.1996. The period with effect from 1.5.1990 to 29.6.1996 cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority and regularization. 7. Accordingly, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.