Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 726 (HP)

Lagan Dass v. H. P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

2013-08-08

A.M.KHANWILKAR, KULDIP SINGH

body2013
JUDGEMENT A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. - 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. 2. AS short question is involved, appeal is taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent. The appeal takes exception to the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 30th August, 2012, in CWP No.742 of 2008. The challenge in this appeal is limited to the finding noted in the impugned decision that the respondents will provide fresh employment to the appellant after scrutiny of the representation to be made by the appellant. 3. THE argument proceeds that the Court, having accepted the grievance of the appellant that the junior persons to the appellant have been reappointed and allowed to work while the claim of the appellant was ignored by the Authority, it should have issued directions to the respondent-Authority to appoint the appellant by giving notional benefit in anterior time or at least simultaneously alongwith his juniors. However, there could be no direction of appointing the appellant on fresh terms only, as is noted in paragraph 7 of the impugned decision. 4. HOWEVER, after scrutiny of the judgment under appeal, it appears that the learned Single Judge has not accepted the grievance of the appellant. In paragraph 6 of the impugned decision, the Court has noted that the evidence of the appellant does not conclusively determine the question that the persons junior to the appellant were retained in service ignoring the policy "First Come Last Go". Unless, the Court were to accept the stand of the petitioner that his juniors have already been re-appointed, the question of issuing direction to the respondent-Authority to appoint the appellant on the same date as his juniors were appointed by giving notional benefit would not arise. The Appellant, however, relies on some subsequent events which would help him in establishing his case as pleaded. Instead of examining the said plea for the first time in LPA, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned decision and relegate the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge for reconsideration of that issue on its own merits, in accordance with law. Instead of examining the said plea for the first time in LPA, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned decision and relegate the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge for reconsideration of that issue on its own merits, in accordance with law. The impugned decision is set-aside to the extent of observation made in paragraph 7 "that the respondents will provide fresh employment to the appellant." Instead, the learned Single Judge, after reconsidering the arguments and material to be placed by the respective parties on the stated matter, shall issue appropriate directions on the basis of the finding to be reached in the matter. 5. THE restored writ petition shall be notified before the appropriate Bench on 17th September, 2013. The parties are free to file further documents and affidavits in the meantime 10th before September, 2013. Appeal disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any.