Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 636 (HP)

Ravi Shankar v. State of H. P.

2017-06-02

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, SANJAY KAROL

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. Contending that the petitioners herein were never heard prior to the passing of the decisions rendered by this Court; which are contrary to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi (3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 ; and that pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, petitioners have filed the instant petition with the following prayers: “(a) That the respondents may be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the case; (b) That respondents may kindly be directed to hear the petitioners while considering the matter regarding seniority of Junior Engineer (Civil); (c) The respondents may be directed not to considered (sic) the period for which the persons appointed on stop gap arrangement on contractual basis for fixed period have worked from their initial appointment till their alleged regularization pursuant to 2004 Rules for calculating their seniority and other consequential benefits, since the 2004 Rules are otherwise also prospective in view of the laid down in decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4916 of 2015(Arising out of S.L.P(C) Nos. 662/2014) titled Surendra Kumar & Ors Petitioners versus Grater Noida Ind. Development Auth. & Ors decided on 2.7.2015; (d) Direct the respondents to maintain the seniority of the petitioners in terms of the final combined seniority list of Junior Engineer (Civil) circulated on 18.4.2017 (Annexure P-15); and (e) Any other relief as may be deemed just and proper keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.” 2. In our considered view, the petition merits dismissal, in limine, for the following reasons: 3. Petitioner Narender Singh Naik, who was initially working as Junior Engineer on contract basis before his regularization, filed CWP(T) No. 6785 of 2008, which came to be disposed of by learned Single Judge of this Court, vide judgment dated 14th September, 2010, in the following terms: “Petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer vide order dated 3.1.1995 on contract basis by following due selection process. He has been regularized as per submission of Mrs. Ranjana Parmar in the year 2008. 2. Mrs. Ranjana Parmar submits that the respondents are not counting the period the petitioner has worked on contract basis with effect from 1995 till the date of his regularization. 3. He has been regularized as per submission of Mrs. Ranjana Parmar in the year 2008. 2. Mrs. Ranjana Parmar submits that the respondents are not counting the period the petitioner has worked on contract basis with effect from 1995 till the date of his regularization. 3. The issue raised in this petition is no more res integra in view of the law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Direct Recruit Class II engineering Officers’ Association versus State of Maharashtra and others, (1990) 2 SCC 715 . 4. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for counting the period he has worked on contract basis with effect from 1995 till regularization with all the consequential benefits in view of the principles laid down in the judgment cited hereinabove. Needful be done within a period of ten weeks after the receipt of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs.” 4. Such findings came to be affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, in an appeal preferred by State of Himachal Pradesh, being LPA No.271 of 2011, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Narender Singh Naik, so decided on 9th April, 2013. This Court observed that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2007, could not be applied retrospectively and since the writ petitioner came to be appointed, in accordance with the then existing Rules so framed in the year 1979, directions issued by learned Single Judge, so contained in para-4 of the judgment, were totally in consonance with law. 5. Noticeably, this view came to be constantly followed by this Court in another petition, being CWP No. 497 of 2013, titled as Shri Chhavinder Kumar Shandil vs. The State of H.P. and others, which came to be disposed of, vide judgment dated 14th May, 2013. 6. It is a matter of record that the judgments rendered in Narender Singh Naik and Chhavinder Kumar Shandil, supra, were assailed by the aggrieved parties, including the present writ petitioners and the State, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6. It is a matter of record that the judgments rendered in Narender Singh Naik and Chhavinder Kumar Shandil, supra, were assailed by the aggrieved parties, including the present writ petitioners and the State, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. While the matter was pending there, present writ petitioners, namely, Ravi Shankar and Rakesh Sharma, filed an application for impleadment in the original S.L.P. Noticeably, vide common judgment dated 26th April, 2017, all the applications as also Special Leave Petitions came to be dismissed with the passing of the following order: “Heard learned counsel for the parties. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. However, we find that the interveners have a grievance that they were not heard and their seniority is affected by the impugned order. If it is so, it will be open to them to move the High Court and the High Court may consider the matter on merits in accordance with law. The special leave petition is disposed of. The application for intervention also stand disposed of. Pending applications, if any, are also stand disposed of. In SLP(C) No.20440/2015 In view of order passed in SLP(C) No.7064/2014 & SLP(C) No.7063/2014, this petition also stand disposed of on same terms. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.” (emphasis supplied) 7. Now significantly, the Apex Court has affirmed the judgments passed by this Court. Special Leave Petitions/application filed by the petitioners herein, also stand disposed of in terms of the order. 8. It is in this backdrop, we find that by way of instant petition, petitioners want us to set aside the findings returned by this Court, as affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Petitioners have not sought review of the decisions rendered by this Court. It is a fresh writ petition with the prayers reproduced supra. As such, liberty so granted to the petitioner of approaching this Court, cannot be construed to mean that by way of separate petition, this Court would quash and set aside the judgments rendered by this Court, which already stand affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. Significantly, dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions is not in limine. As such, liberty so granted to the petitioner of approaching this Court, cannot be construed to mean that by way of separate petition, this Court would quash and set aside the judgments rendered by this Court, which already stand affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. Significantly, dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions is not in limine. In our considered view, doctrine of merger would be applicable in the instant case for our judgment having merged with that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this we say so for the reason that the parties were heard and the Hon’ble Supreme Court consciously held their being no ground available, warranting interference with the impugned orders. As such, we see no reason to even issue notice in the petition. {Gangadhara Palo vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and another, (2011) 4 SCC 602 (Para-8)}. 10. To a specific query, we are informed that as on date no seniority list stands prepared, in terms of directions issued by this Court. 11. Procedurally, first provisional seniority list is prepared, which obviously is to be finalized after receiving objections, if any, thereto, at which stage petitioners can take resort to remedies, in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, present petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any.