Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 546 (HP)

Kamal Kishor v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-06-17

R.B.MISRA, SURINDER SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. THE instant review petition has been preferred against the judgment/order passed by this Court in CWP No. 1219/2012, decided on 14.3.2012, reproduced as under:- Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? "The petitioner claims work charge status on completion of eight years of continuous service as daily waged Junior Engineer. According to the petitioner, the issue is covered in his favour by the judgment of this Court rendered in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, Rakesh Kumar versus State of H.P. and others. It is for the respondents to examine the matter. We are informed that the State has filed an appeal against the above mentioned decision. Therefore, it is made clear that the implementation of the judgment referred to above would depend on the outcome of the decision of the Apex Court. The needful action, after verifying the facts will be taken within a period of two months from the date of the judgment of the Apex Court. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment alongwith a copy of the Writ Petition before the 2nd respondent/competent authority." 2. NOW, in the review petition it is alleged that Rakesh Kumar's judgment, referred above, was not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case as the petitioner claimed regularization w.e.f. 1.1.2004, as per the policy of the State Government. During hearing of the review petition, the petitioner placed on record, mandays chart, Annexure P-1. Vide order dated 13.9.2012, a direction was given to the Divisional Forest Officer, Jogindernagar, to be present before this Court on the next date of hearing alongwith the official, who allegedly prepared Annexure P-1, mandays chart to explain the basis of the preparation of mandays chart, since the petitioner had otherwise made available the attendance sheet, showing that he had been working since 1996-1997, continuously. 3. THEREAFTER, the matter was taken up on 8.10.2012 and also on 21.11.2012 and this Court found variance in the number of days. The petitioner had worked as Beldar in the respondent-department as per Annexure R-1 filed with the reply and Annexure P-1 filed with the rejoinder. Consequently, the Divisional Forest Officer, Joginernagar was directed to reconcile the muster-roll/vouchers, on the basis of which daily wages were paid to the petitioner and the matter was ordered to be listed on 13.12.2012. 4. The petitioner had worked as Beldar in the respondent-department as per Annexure R-1 filed with the reply and Annexure P-1 filed with the rejoinder. Consequently, the Divisional Forest Officer, Joginernagar was directed to reconcile the muster-roll/vouchers, on the basis of which daily wages were paid to the petitioner and the matter was ordered to be listed on 13.12.2012. 4. ULTIMATELY, on 28.2.2013, Shri P.L. Gupta, Divisional Forest Officer, Joginernager submitted, on the basis of records, that the petitioner was not issued any muster roll for the years 1996 to 1999, as per the details given in Annexure P-1. It was further submitted that since the muster rolls were not issued to the petitioner, there could not be corresponding entries in the cash books. Thus, there was a direction to Shri P.L. Gupta, aforesaid to file supplementary affidavit, which is now placed and taken on record, whereby it is clarified that the mandays chart w.e.f. 1996 to 2007 annexed as Annexure P-1 by the petitioner in the writ petition was fabricated and not based on the official record. The mandays as shown in the mandays chart were totally wrong and by this, the petitioner was trying to gain undue benefit, as shown by him. Further, as per the record of the officer, the mandays as shown by the petitioner in Annexure P-1 were though issued, but his name did not appear in these muster rolls for the years 1996 to January 1999. Thus, it is evident from the muster rolls aforesaid that the petitioner had not worked during this period and was misleading this Court by producing the fabricated record. It is also clarified that the petitioner was actually engaged as daily waged worker in the year 1999 in the month of February. His detailed mandays chart w.e.f. February 1999 to August 2003 alongwith the comparative statement of the record was produced. But, after 2003 till March, 2009, the petitioner did not work with the respondent department. The muster roll and mandays chart shown by the petitioner were found wrong and were denied, since the petitioner did not work with the respondent department during this period. He had been getting the work from the Department on contractual basis w.e.f. April 2009 to March, 2012, as per the details given in Annexure R-1. 5. The muster roll and mandays chart shown by the petitioner were found wrong and were denied, since the petitioner did not work with the respondent department during this period. He had been getting the work from the Department on contractual basis w.e.f. April 2009 to March, 2012, as per the details given in Annexure R-1. 5. THUS, in view of the above, the petitioner had not completed 240 days in any of the years mentioned by him. It is also evident from the record that the respondent department had issued show cause notice to Rajinder Paul, Deputy Ranger (Retired), posted as Block Officer, Tihra at the relevant time in Kamleh Forest Range of the said Division contemplating an action under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 that he had fabricated the record of attendance of the petitioner and given attendance certificate under his signatures, though the muster-roll did not have the name of the petitioner. 6. AFTER hearing the parties and going through the record, we find that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands. Muster-roll did not contain his name, whereby he was claiming himself to be working as a daily wager. Therefore, the impugned judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 1219/2012, decided on 14.3.2012, is hereby reviewed to the effect that Rakesh Kumar's judgment, referred therein, is not applicable to his case and further that the claim of the petitioner was based upon the manipulated/fabricated record, for which appropriate action is being taken by the respondents for fudging the record. As such, the impugned judgment stands reviewed and the original petition CWP No. 1219/2012 filed by petitioner Kamal Kishor for his regularization is hereby dismissed. However, in addition to the contemplated departmental action, the respondent-Department shall be at liberty to lodge FIR against the defaulting officer/official. 7. FOR the aforesaid reasons, the present petition stands disposed of. Consequently, CWP No. 1219/2012 is also dismissed. 9. Pending application(s) also stands disposed of.