JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. More than two decades back, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Co-operative Consumers’ Store Ltd. versus Labour Court, H.P. at Shimla and another AIR 1994 SC 23 had observed as under:- “5. Public money has been wasted due to adamant behaviour not only of the officer who terminated the services but also due to cantankerous attitude adopted by those responsible for pursuing the litigation before the one or the other authority. They have literally persecuted her. Despite unequal strength the opposite party has managed to survive…….” 2. This is a third round of litigation interse the parties. The appellant which is a Public Sector Undertaking and a ‘state’ within Article 12 of the Constitution of India appears to be an adventurous litigant and has come up in appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the petition filed by the writ petitioner (respondent herein) and directed his regularization with effect from 06.05.2000 instead of 08.07.2004 on the post of Supervisor/Draughtsman. 3. The appeal, infact, owes its genesis to Original Application No.784/2004 which was preferred by the respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as original petitioner) before the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal. The original petitioner had alleged that he had been working as Supervisor on daily wages with the appellant-Corporation since 01.02.1990 and as such he had completed 10 years service with 240 days in each calendar year on 31.01.2000. He was, therefore, required to be brought on work charge establishment with effect 01.02.2000 after completion of 10 years of service in accordance with the policy framed by the State Government in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P. and others 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316. 4. In the reply-affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant-Corporation, the claim of the original petitioner was though accepted, but it was alleged that the relief cannot be granted because the meeting of the Service Committee had not been held. It was averred that the Service Committee is the competent authority for regularization of the services of the original petitioner and it was further admitted that the claim of the original petitioner for being brought on work charge status/regularization is genuine. It was averred that the Service Committee is the competent authority for regularization of the services of the original petitioner and it was further admitted that the claim of the original petitioner for being brought on work charge status/regularization is genuine. On the basis of such pleadings, the Administrative Tribunal vide its order dated 27.05.2004 was pleased to dispose of the Original Application No.784/2004 with the following directions:- “From the above discussion, it is observed that the case of the applicant deserves consideration for granting the relief and as such respondent No.1 i.e. Managing Director, Himachal Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Shimla is directed to consider the case of the applicant and grant him appropriate relief as per his prayer within four months from now on consideration of the case and as per the rules on the subject, the claim being factually correct. In case the Managing Director is not competent to grant the relief then meeting of the Service Committee be convened and held within stipulated period of four months to decide the case of the applicant. With the above observations and directions, the original application stands disposed of.” Admittedly, this order of the learned Tribunal has attained finality as the same was not challenged by the appellant. 5. Though, the appellant had conceded the claim of the original petitioner before the Tribunal, yet, instead of regularizing services of the original petitioner with effect from 31.01.2000 when admittedly he had completed 10 years of continuous service, he was brought on work charge basis with effect from 08.07.2004. 6. This constrained the original petitioner to file another Original Application before the H.P. Administrative Tribunal being O.A. No.1110/2005 wherein he once again claimed that his services be regularized with effect from 31.01.2000 instead of 08.07.2004 since he had admittedly completed 10 years of continuous service on that day. 7. In reply, the appellant this time took a complete somersault and claimed that the original petitioner had been brought on work charge basis with effect from 08.07.2004 after completing all codal formalities as per the prevalent policy of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. A reference was also made to the Government of Himachal Pradesh letter dated 06.05.2000 and another letter dated 29.08. A reference was also made to the Government of Himachal Pradesh letter dated 06.05.2000 and another letter dated 29.08. 2002 wherein it had been laid down that the workers, who have completed 8 years of service with 240 days in a calendar year on muster roll basis on 31.03.2000, were eligible to be brought on work charge basis from prospective effect and it is for this reason that the original petitioner had been ordered to be regularized with effect 08.07.2004 and not from 31.01.2000. The copies of the letters dated 06.05.2000 and 29.08.2002 were appended with the reply as Annexures R-1 and R-2. The main thrust of the appellant was that the original petitioner had no right to claim regularization from retrospective effect. 8. Upon closure of the Tribunal, the case was remitted to this court and the petition was renumbered as CWP(T) No.11901/2008. Vide order dated 31.10.2011, initially, a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the petition and direc ted the appellant to regularize the services of the original petitioner with effect from 06.05.2000 and granted him all consequential benefits including monetary benefits. This order admittedly had been passed when the appellant was not represented. Civil Review No.193 of 2011 for recalling this order was preferred by the appellant which was allowed and the matter was reheard by another learned Single Judge of this Court, who too vide his Judgment dated 26.04.2012 was pleased to allow the petition preferred by the original petitioner. 9. The learned Single Judge took note of the following contents of the reply-affidavit as had earlier been noticed by the learned Tribunal which reads thus:- “In the reply affidavit filed by the respondent Corporation in Para 6(ii) and para-7 they have accepted the claim of the applicant. But the relief cannot be granted, because the meeting of the Service Committee is not held.” 10. It was further observed that the learned Tribunal had already disposed of the matter after considering the case of the original petitioner was covered by the decision of Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case (supra) and claim of the original petitioner was sought to be defeated on the ground that Service Committee whose recommendations had been affirmed by the Board of Directors had not agreed to the retrospective regularization of the original petitioner in view of the instructions contained in Annexures R-1 and R-2. 11. 11. The learned Single Judge thereafter proceeded to decide the matter in the following terms:- “6. I must express my surprise at the manner in which the respondent-Corporation has taken a U-turn. Having conceded before the Tribunal that the case of the petitioner is covered and relief could not be granted because it required the consensus of the Service Committee, it is not open to the respondent-Corporation now to turn around and state that no such relief is available. In fact, when the case was taken up in the previous petition (OA No.784 of 2004), the entire case of the petitioner was conceded. But be that as it may, the rejection which has been conveyed (Anneuxre:P4) is terse and bereft of reasons. Annexure:A4 therefore cannot be sustained under any circumstances and is accordingly quashed and set aside and the respondent-Corporation is expected to act fairly and not in a manner which violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is not clear from the reply as to under what circumstances, reply in the previous petition was filed conceding the claim of the respondent. It is directed that the petitioner be granted the benefit as claimed in consonance with Annexure R1 applicable on and w.e.f. 6.5.2000 with all consequential benefits. The petition is allowed. No order as to costs.” 12. Undeterred and displaying total lack of sensitivity, the appellant has come up in appeal before this Court questioning the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge mainly on the ground that services of the original petitioner could not have been ordered to be regularized retrospectively since the instructions issued by the Government on 06.05.2000 would only apply prospectively. 13. We deem it apposite now to refer to the letter/instruction dated 06.05.2000 (Annexure R-1) which on the face of it shows that this letter/instruction was in continuation of the nine instructions previously issued on the subject from 11.07.1995 onwards. Therefore, it is amply clear that this was not the original policy document but was an instruction issued in continuation of the original policy as would be clear from the bare perusal of Para-1 of the letter (Annexure R-1) which is reproduced hereinbelow:- “I am directed to say that the Government from time to time have issued instructions for the regularization of daily waged/contingent paid workers, which are detailed hereunder for ready reference:- (i) PER (AP-II)B(2)-5/86-II dated 11-7-1995. (ii) PER (AP)-C-B(2)-2/97 dated 11-12-1997. (iii) PER (AP)-C-B (2) -2/97 dated 12-12-1997. (iv) PER(AP)-C-B(2)-2/97 dated 16-12-1997. (v) PER (AP)-C-B(2)-2/97 dated 31-12-1997. (vi) PER(AP)-C-B(2)-2/97-Vol.II dated 23-9-1998. (vii) PER(AP)-C-B(2)-2/97-Vol.IV dated 8-7-1999. (viii) PER(AP)-C-B(2)-2/97-Vol.IV dated 3-4-2000. (ix) PER(AP)-C-D(1)-1/2000 dated 6-5-2000.” 14. Even if, the contents of the instructions dated 31.03.2000 are perused, even then, the services of the original petitioner were required to be regularized on his completing 8 years of service as on 31.03.2000 as would be clear from sub-para (i) of the letter Annexure R-1 which reads thus: “(i) Daily Waged/Contingent Paid Workers who have completed required years of continuous service (with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year except where specified otherwise for the tribal areas) which as per latest instructions issued vide this Department letter of even number dated 3-4-2000 is 8 years as on 31-03-2000 shall be eligible for regularization. However, in Departments/Corporations/Boards, where the system of the work charge categories also exists, eligible daily wagers will be considered first for bringing them on the work charge category instead of regularization. Such eligible daily waged workers/contingent paid workers will be considered for regularization against vacant posts or by creation of fresh posts and in both these events prior approval of Finance Department will be required as per their letter No.Fin-1-C(7-1/99 dated 24-12-1999. The terms and conditions for such regularization shall be governed as per Annexure-‘A’.” 15. Not only this, in the subsequent letter dated 29.08.2002 (Annexure R-2), it has been said as follows:- “(a) Regularization of the Daily Wagers who have completed 08 years of service as such as on 31.03.2000 will be done at the level of the Administrative Secretaries to the Government of Himachal Pradesh of the Department(s) concerned.” Thus, even in terms of these two letters the services of the original petitioner were required to be regularized in the year 2000 and could not have been arbitrarily postponed till 2004. Therefore, we fail to understand as to how the appellant in the given facts and circumstances could be said to be an ‘aggrieved party’ and further how the directions initially given by the learned Tribunal and thereafter vide the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge would amount to ‘retrospective regularization’ of the original petitioner. 16. Therefore, we fail to understand as to how the appellant in the given facts and circumstances could be said to be an ‘aggrieved party’ and further how the directions initially given by the learned Tribunal and thereafter vide the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge would amount to ‘retrospective regularization’ of the original petitioner. 16. From what has been observed above, it can be safely concluded that the appellant has acted with total lack of sensitivity and in a utterly callous manner and has been successful in protracting the litigation on one pretext or the other. 17. The Central Government, State Governments and likewise all Public Sector Undertakings are expected to function like model employers. A model employer is under an obligation to conduct itself with high probity and expected candour. An employer who is duty bound to act as a model employer has social obligation to treat an employee in an appropriate manner so that an employee is not condemned to feel totally subservient to the situation. A model employer should not exploit the employees and take advantage of their helplessness and misery. In the present case, the conduct of the appellant is reprehensible and falls short of expectation of a model employer. 18. To say the least the appellant has indulged in vexatious, frivolous and speculative litigation and has thereby driven the original petitioner to unnecessary and otherwise avoidable litigation. Moreover, even the precious time of the Court has been wasted. Therefore, this is a fit case where the appeal deserves to be dismissed with heavy and special costs. 19. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.1 lakh which shall be personally recovered from the erring officials (irrespective of whether they are still serving or not) who have been responsible for the relentless litigation. The costs, at the first instance, will be paid by the appellant and thereafter shall be recovered from the erring officials within a period of three months and compliance report thereof be submitted to this Court on or before 30th June, 2014 when the case shall for this limited purpose be listed before the Court. On deposit of the costs in the Registry of this Court, the original petitioner shall be entitled to Rs.50,000/- while the remaining amount shall be remitted to the H.P. Legal Services Authority. On deposit of the costs in the Registry of this Court, the original petitioner shall be entitled to Rs.50,000/- while the remaining amount shall be remitted to the H.P. Legal Services Authority. Let copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Himachal Pradesh, for circulation to all the concerned quarters.