Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 889 (HP)

Yoginder Ram v. State of H. P

2012-11-27

DEV DARSHAN SUD

body2012
Judgment Dev Darshan Sud, J. Both these petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as they arise out of common set of facts. The petitioner Yoginder Ram in CWP No.6293 of 2010 and petitioner Mast Ram in CWP No. 72 of 2009 challenge the action of the respondents. Petitioner-Yoginder Ram seeks quashing of Annexure:P1 which is the office order pursuant to which some directions were issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, HP.PWD on 25th August, 2010 and in partial supersession of order dated 27.6.2003, the persons mentioned in that order were granted the “second schedule pay scale” in the ratio of 20:30 and then re-designated them. Petitioner Yoginder Ram does not figure in that order but petitioner Mast Ram was re-designated as Technician Grade-I (Mech-cum-Fitter). Second annexure impugned by petitioner Yoginder Ram is Annexure:P3 in which respondent No.4-Mast Ram figures at serial No. 2 and the petitioner is at serial No. 20 on the final seniority list of Junior Technicians (Mechanic-cum-Fitter Gr-II) as on 31.12.2001. 2. The case pleaded by petitioner Yoginder Ram is that he was appointed as daily wager Mechanic in the 11th Circle, H.P.PWD in the year 1984. His services were regularized as Hot Mixture Plant Operator in 1989 as the post of Mechanic was not available at that time. The designation of the petitioner was changed on 31.10.1996 as Mechanic-cum-Fitter Grade-II, by order Annexure:P4 issued by the Superintending Engineer, 11th Circle H.P.PWD, Rampur Bushahr. He then pleads that a provisional seniority list of work charged Mechanical staff of various categories Annexure:P5 was circulated by the respondents in which the name of the petitioner was shown at serial No.2 as Junior Technician Mechanic-cum-Fitter Grade-II but the name of respondent Mast Ram does not figure in this list. A letter dated 21.6.2002 Annexure:P6 was issued by the respondents stating therein that the meeting of D.P.C. would be held on 24.6.2003 in the circle office with respect to the implementation of the pay scale as per Second Schedule revised w.e.f. 1.1.1996 of various categories of staff working in the Circle. By another order Annexure:P7 issued on 27.6.2003 the petitioner was granted the pay scale in terms of the recommendations of the D.P.C. aforesaid and he was designated as Technician Grade-I (Mechanic-cum-Fitter). 3. By another order Annexure:P7 issued on 27.6.2003 the petitioner was granted the pay scale in terms of the recommendations of the D.P.C. aforesaid and he was designated as Technician Grade-I (Mechanic-cum-Fitter). 3. It is then urged that respondent No.4 Mast Ram filed CWP No. 72 of 2009 in which a prayer was made by him that his name may be included in the seniority list of the employees of 11th Circle and the benefits be granted to him w.e.f. 1.1.1996 when his juniors were promoted. In this writ petition, the respondent-State had filed a short reply (Annexure:P9) stating that the claim of the 4th respondent herein (who was the petitioner in CWP No. 72 of 2008 supra) was not entitled to any relief since he has challenged his seniority and promotion after 14 long years which could not be permitted. In the meanwhile, a review D.P.C. was held in which respondent No.4 Mast Ram was shown at serial No.2 as Mechanic-cum-Fitter. This D.P.C. was the outcome of some advice rendered by the Deputy District Attorney vide Annexure:P2. 4. CWP No. 72 of 2009 has been preferred by Sh. Mast Ram where he prays that Annexures:P4, P5 and P7 annexed in that petition may be quashed. By order Annexure:P3 issued on 21.9.1995, the designation of Sh. Mast Ram was changed from Mechanic to Mechanic-cum-Fitter Grade-II. In the provisional seniority list of Mechanical staff as on 1.1.1996, Sh Yoginder Ram-respondent has been shown at serial No. 2 and the orders passed by the Departmental Promotion Committee denying benefit to the petitioner therein. 5. This Court had called for the records of the review D.P.C. to ascertain as to why and under what circumstances it was convened. The State relies upon Anneure:R2 annexed with the reply which is an endorsement/acceptance of the final seniority list Annexure:P3 by the petitioner without demur. This annexure is a photocopy from the original on which the signatures of other employees purportedly adversely affected by the orders were appended. The no objection is purported to have been written by Sh.Yoginder Ram and signed on 23.8.2010. It states that he has seen the final seniority list of Mechanic-cum-Fitter Grade-II as on 31.12.2001 circulated by the Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, HP.PWD, Rampur in which the name of petitioner Yoginder Ram figures at serial No. 20 and he has no objection. The no objection is purported to have been written by Sh.Yoginder Ram and signed on 23.8.2010. It states that he has seen the final seniority list of Mechanic-cum-Fitter Grade-II as on 31.12.2001 circulated by the Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, HP.PWD, Rampur in which the name of petitioner Yoginder Ram figures at serial No. 20 and he has no objection. What I find from Annexure:R2 is that the signatures of S/Shri Mast Ram, Ramsher Singh, Shyam Lal, Atul Kumar, Hardyal Singh, Yogga Nand were appended on 21.8.2010, S/Sh. Salig Ram & Yoginder Ram on 23.8.2010 and Sh. Dhani Ram on 24.8.2010. 6. I find it strange that the signature of Sh. Yoginder Ram figure at two places, one at the top and one at serial No.7. I also find that there is no explanation as to why were the signatures of others employees obtained on 21st August, 2010 when the no objection is of 23.8.2010. Obviously, in these circumstances, it seems that the signatures may have been obtained on a blank paper which was later on was filled in by the respondents or some other persons. I was initially inclined to direct a police inquiry into this matter to find out as to why and how under what circumstances the paper(s) were manipulated. 7. It is trite that a review D.P.C. is to be held in accordance with the rules and law governing review. If there was an error in the seniority list that could have been sorted out by the respondents by inviting objections from all concerned and then deciding in accordance with law as to what was the rightful seniority of each individual employee. 8. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner-Yoginder Ram relies upon the two decisions one of this Court in Suraj Ram Sharma and another Vs. State of H.P. and others, Latest HLJ 2011 (HP) 401 and the Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. A.Durairaj (dead) by Lrs., 2011 (3) SLR 96 to urge that once seniority has been finalized in 1996, it is not open to the fourth respondent to have challenged the same in any manner whatsoever after a lapse of 12 years. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submits that implementing the law in this respect would cause severe hardship to him for the reason that he would disappear from the cadre of 11th Circle, Rampur. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submits that implementing the law in this respect would cause severe hardship to him for the reason that he would disappear from the cadre of 11th Circle, Rampur. For what I hold this would not affect the rights of the parties for the reason that the fourth respondent has also to find a place in the cadre somewhere. By invocation of this principle, the fourth respondent cannot be effaced from the cadre of skilled workers of the H.P.PWD. If the blame is to be laid on anybody, it is the State which has been manipulating papers and forgetting to treat its employee equally. What I find from the facts of the case is that the manner in which the seniority list has been finalized by the respondents by obtaining no objection from all the purported affected employees in the manner as noticed is absolutely arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. In these circumstances, both these petitions are disposed of. A direction is issued to the Chief Engineer, H.P.PWD to decide the case afresh in accordance with law. It is directed that the petitioners in both the petitions will not be reverted from the posts on which they are working nor reducing the pay scale which they are drawing. Liberty reserved to both the petitioners to approach this Court again in accordance with law, should the need so arise. 11. Before parting with the case, I place on record my anguish in the manner in which the State treats its employees. To reiterate, I was inclined to send the matter to the police for investigation but taking into consideration that two employees have been suffering for a considerable long period of time, I have refrained from taking such action. Both these petitions are disposed of. Cost of Rs.11,000/- on each petition is on the respondent-State.