Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2008 (HP)

Hans Raj S/o Sh Gokal Ram v. HPSEB

2014-12-24

P.S.RANA

body2014
JUDGMENT : P.S. RANA, J. 1. Present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is pleaded that petitioner was appointed as temporary employee in the year 1981. It is pleaded that services of the petitioner was regularized w.e.f. 9.9.1997. It is pleaded that petitioner was retired from service in July 2003. It is pleaded that petitioner was illegally treated as daily wage employee. It is pleaded that period w.e.f. 1981 to 9.9.1997 has not been counted for pay fixation, increments and pensionary benefits. It is pleaded that entire period of service of the petitioner w.e.f. 1981 to 9.9.1997 should be treated for pay fixation, increment and grant of pay scale and allowances from the initial appointment till the services of the petitioner was regularized. It is pleaded that period of service of the petitioner w.e.f. 1981 to 9.9.1997 be also counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Prayer for acceptance of writ petition sought. 2. Per contra reply filed on behalf of the respondents pleaded therein that present petition is barred on the concept of delay and laches. It is pleaded that petitioner is estopped to file present petition on his act and conduct. It is pleaded that petitioner has not completed qualifying service of ten years. It is further pleaded that petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of pensionary benefits in view of the decision rendered by Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of HP in CWP No. 3493 of 2011 and in view of settlement arrived by Hon'ble Apex Court of India in civil writ petition Nos. 788 of 1987, 705 of 1987 and 398 of 1981. It is further pleaded that petitioner was appointed as work charge T-mate vide order dated September 1997 and petitioner was offered work charge status. It is pleaded that work charge employee is not entitled for pensionary benefits. Prayer for dismissal of writ petition sought. 3. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents and also perused the record carefully. 4. Following points arise for determination in the present writ petition: (1) Whether relief after fifteen years from date of cause of action is barred on the concept of delay, laches and acquiescence as alleged? (2) Final order. Finding upon point No.1. 5. 4. Following points arise for determination in the present writ petition: (1) Whether relief after fifteen years from date of cause of action is barred on the concept of delay, laches and acquiescence as alleged? (2) Final order. Finding upon point No.1. 5. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the services of the petitioners for the period w.e.f. 1981 to 9.9.1997 be counted for the purpose of pay fixation and increment and the said period be also counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that petitioner was appointed as T-Mate on work charge basis. It is proved on record that thereafter petitioner voluntarily accepted the post of T-Mate on work charge basis. Petitioner did not challenge the status of T-Mate on work charge from 1997 till 11.11.2012. It is proved on record that petitioner has challenged the status of T-Mate after a gap of fifteen years. It is also proved on record that petitioner has voluntarily received the salary of T-Mate on work charge status. It was held in case reported in AIR 2014 Patna 208 titled The State of Bihar Vs. Bhagwan Singh (since dead) by legal heirs that service rendered by government employee as daily wages could not be counted for pension benefit and it was held that service of the employee for pension benefit would be calculated from the date of appointment of the employee upon a substantive post. It was held by Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of HP in CWP No. 180 of 2001 titled State of HP and another Vs. Ram Lal and others decided on 31.5.2012 that Pension Chapter of the Civil Service Regulations which governed the employees earlier stood repealed after the enforcement of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 and the savings portion of Rule 89 of the 1972 Rules does not save the office Memorandum No. F.12 (1)E.V/68 dated 14.5.1968 and it was held that the service rendered on daily wages basis by the employees before their regularization/grant of work charged status could not be counted for their qualifying service for grant of pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. It was held in case reported in AIR 2003 SC 3860 titled State Bank of India Vs. It was held in case reported in AIR 2003 SC 3860 titled State Bank of India Vs. L. Kannaiah and others that clubbing of past service for the purpose of pension in the absence of rule is not permissible. In the present case petitioner did not challenge the status of his service even after his regularization on 9.9.1997. It was held in case reported in 1976 (1) Service Law Reporter 53 titled P.S.Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (Apex Court of India) that relief should be declined to the petitioner if writ petition is not filed expeditiously. It was held that normally writ petition should be filed within six months or at the most within one year after the arisen of cause action. It was held in case reported in AIR 2014 (Suppl.) Him L.R. (DB) 2422 titled Satija Rajesh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others that delay is important factor in writ petition and it was held that delay defeats equity and it was held that delay could not be brushed aside without plausible explanation. In view of the above stated facts it is not expedient in the ends of justice to grant relief to the petitioner on the concept of delay, laches and acquiescence. There is no plausible explanation of delay for about fifteen years after cause of action given by petitioner. Petitioner did not place on record any document in order to prove that petitioner had filed any representation before competent authority of law in order to redress his grievance in order to condone delay from date of cause of action. It was held in case reported in AIR 1989 SC 674 titled M/s Rup Diamonds and others Vs. Union of India that Court has consistently rejected the contention that petition should be considered ignoring delay and laches in case petitioner approaches the Court after coming to know of the relief granted by Court in similar case. It was held that the same is not proper explanation of delay and laches. It was held that litigant could not wake up from deep slumber and could not claim impetus from the judgment in cases where some diligent person had approached within reasonable time. See 1996 (6) SCC 267 titled State of Karnataka and others Vs. S.M.Kotrayya and others See AIR 1997 SC 2366 titled Jagdish Lal and others Vs. Vs. State of Haryana. See 1996 (6) SCC 267 titled State of Karnataka and others Vs. S.M.Kotrayya and others See AIR 1997 SC 2366 titled Jagdish Lal and others Vs. Vs. State of Haryana. Hence point No.1 is decided against the petitioner and in favour of respondents. Final Order. 6. In view of my findings upon point No.1 civil writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is dismissed on the concept of delay, laches and acquiescence. In the present case delay of more than fifteen years is writ large from the date of cause of action. No order as to costs. Writ petition disposed of. Pending application (s) if any are also disposed of.