Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1494 (HP)

Chain Singh S/o Sh Sant Ram v. State of H. P.

2014-10-21

P.S.RANA

body2014
JUDGMENT P.S. Rana, J. Present Civil Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is pleaded that respondent department invited applications from the desirous candidates having a particular qualification for providing them one year training of gardener. It is further pleaded that petitioner applied for the training of gardener and after conducting the interview he was selected for the same post vide selection letter dated 1.8.1997. It is further pleaded that in the year 1998 petitioner successfully completed the training of gardener. It is further pleaded that petitioner was engaged by the respondent department as gardener in the year 1999 but work for the post of Clerk was obtained from the petitioner. It is further pleaded that eleven years have past but respondents have not regularized the service of the petitioner despite many representations for regularization. It is further pleaded that direction be issued to the respondents for regularization/work charge the services of the petitioner in the capacity of gardener. It is further pleaded that respondents be directed to pay wages of Clerk/gardener to the petitioner from 1999. It is further pleaded that respondents be directed to pay the arrears of salary with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Prayer for acceptance of writ petition sought. 2. Per contra reply filed on behalf of the respondents pleaded therein that one year vocational gardener training was conducted under the Dr. Y.S Parmer University and the resident commissioner being the single line administrator selected the petitioner along with others for the said training. It is further pleaded that main purpose to conduct the training was to make the unemployed youth self reliant. It is further pleaded that training was imparted for self employment purpose. It is further pleaded that petitioner has no legitimate right to claim the government service on the basis of training imparted and the respondent department is not bound to provide government job. It is further pleaded that petitioner was initially engaged during the month of June 1999 for seasonal work at Progeny-cum- Demonstration Orchard at Killar as well as some time in the office of Subject Matter Specialist Pangi at Killar subject to availability of work and petitioner remained on work till 2004. It is further pleaded that petitioner has not completed required 160 days in the year 1999, 2003 and 2004. It is further pleaded that petitioner has not completed required 160 days in the year 1999, 2003 and 2004. It is further pleaded that petitioner is not eligible for work charge status as the petitioner has not worked continuously with respondent department. It is further pleaded that petitioner was engaged as daily paid labourer at Progeny-cum-Demonstration Orchard Killar and when the work was not available at Progeny-cum-Demonstration Orchard the petitioner thereafter worked in the office of Subject Matter Specialist Pangi as beldar for cleaning the office and to distribute the official letters etc. It is further pleaded that petitioner was engaged at Progeny-cum-Demonstration Orchard Killar as beldar for seasonal work and is not entitled for any relief. It is further pleaded that wages already stood paid to the petitioner. It is further pleaded that petitioner was not engaged as Clerk and petitioner is not eligible for the wages of Clerk. Prayer for dismissal of writ petition sought. Petitioner filed rejoinder and re-asserted the allegation pleaded in the civil writ petition. 3. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the respondents and also perused entire records carefully. 4. Following points arise for determination in the present writ petition: (1) Whether petitioner is entitled for regularization of service as alleged? (2) Whether petitioner is entitled for work charge status as alleged? (3) Whether petitioner is entitled for the wages of Clerk from the year 1999 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum as alleged? Finding upon Point No.1. 5. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the service of the petitioner should be regularized is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that services in public post are regularized as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules after the appointment of selection committee by the employer. It is well settled law that regularization in the service is not automatic. It is well settled law that regularization in the services is subject to the vacancy available qua particular post. Petitioner did not place on record any document in order to prove that he was recommended by the selection committee for regularization of his service. Petitioner also did not prove on record that there is regular vacancy as claimed by the petitioner. Petitioner did not place on record any document in order to prove that he was recommended by the selection committee for regularization of his service. Petitioner also did not prove on record that there is regular vacancy as claimed by the petitioner. It is also proved on record that as per Annexure R1 there is break in service of petitioner in the year 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 and it is also proved on record that petitioner did not continuously worked for 160 days without any interruption. In view of the above stated facts the prayer of the petitioner that his service be regularized is declined in the ends of justice. Hence point No.1 is answered against the petitioner. Finding upon Point No.2. 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that work charge status should be given to the petitioner is accepted for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that work charged employees are engaged on a temporary basis and their appointments are made for execution of specified work. It is well settled law that service of work charged employee automatically come to an end on the completion of work for the sole purpose for which the employee was engaged. See 1979 4 SCC 440 titled Jaswant Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others. It is admitted by the respondents that service of the petitioner obtained for a particular season. Administrative Officer Directorate of Horticulture HP has submitted document Annexure R1 which is quoted in toto:- Detail of the working days in respect of Sh Chain Singh S/o Sh Sant Ram of the office of Subject Matter Specialist, Pangi at Killar w.e.f.1.6.1999 to 30.4.2004. 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 January --- --- 31 30 --- 20 February --- --- 28 27 --- 29 March --- --- 23 27 --- --- April --- --- --- --- --- 29 May --- 31 --- --- 31 --- June 15 15 29 --- 30 --- July 31 31 30 7 31 --- August --- 31 20 30 --- --- September --- 22 28 30 30 --- October --- 31 27 31 --- --- November --- --- 29 30 --- --- December --- --- 30 31 --- --- Total Days. 46 161 275 243 122 78 It is also proved on record as per Annexure R1 that service of petitioner was engaged for particular season. It is also proved on record vide Annexure P2 that training was imparted to petitioner Chain Singh for self employment. In view of the fact that petitioner has worked in particular season in the year 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 for specified period with break as shown in Annexure R1 it is held that petitioner will be entitled for seasonal work which the petitioner had performed in the aforesaid years. Hence point No.2 is decided accordingly. Finding upon Point No.3 7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that he has worked as Clerk and salary of Clerk be granted to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that petitioner has worked as a Clerk. On the contrary it is proved on record that petitioner has worked in a particular season. Petitioner did not place on record any office order in order to prove that the competent authority has directed him to perform the work of Clerk. It is well settled law that no person can work upon a post unless directed by the employer in a written manner in accordance with law. In the absence of any order of employer to engage the petitioner as Clerk it is not expedient in the ends of justice to grant the salary of Clerk to the petitioner. Point No.3 is decided against the petitioner. 8. In view of the above stated facts it is held (1) That petitioner will be legally entitled for seasonal work with remuneration as performed by the petitioner in the year 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. (2) Respondents are directed to provide seasonal work to petitioner as gardener. (3) Other relief(s) claimed by petitioner declined. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. All miscellaneous application(s) are also disposed of.