Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1944 (HP)

Jindo Kumar v. State Of Hp

2019-12-18

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2019
JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that as per the petitioner, he was initially appointed as a Peon on daily wages in the Agriculture Department on 01.08.1994. His services were regularized with effect from 17.08.2006. 2. In the year, 2012 i.e. six years after the services of the petitioner were regularized, he challenged said regularization by filing CWP No.2227 of 2012, on the ground that his services be regularized with effect from 01.01.2003 instead of 17.08.2006 in terms of policy of the Government vogue at the relevant time pertaining to regularization. 3. This petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 11.04.2012 alongwith other connected matters, on the statement of learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue was covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in CWP No.2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar versus State of H.P. The only direction which was passed by this Court while disposing of the writ petition was that respondents were directed to examine the matter. In other words, it is not as if the Court on merits returned the findings that the case of the petitioner was covered by the judgment of Rakesh Kumar Versus State of H.P. (Supra). 4. Be that as it may, thereafter, vide order dated 26.02.2014, the case of the petitioner was rejected by the Authority concerned i.e. Director of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh, on the ground that the case of petitioner was not covered in terms of the judgment passed by the Court in Rakesh Kumar''s case. 5. The order so passed on 26.02.2014, was challenged after a gap of about three years by way of filing OA (D) No.333 of 2017 titled as Jindu Ram Versus State of H.P. and another. This original application was also disposed of by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 21.11.2017, on the request of the learned counsel representing the original applicant therein that the case was covered by the decision of the learned Tribunal so passed in OA No.5338 of 2016, titled as Hero Devi Versus State of HP and others. The only direction which was passed by the learned Tribunal was to consider the case of the original applicant in view of the principles laid down in Hero Devi versus State of HP and others. 6. The only direction which was passed by the learned Tribunal was to consider the case of the original applicant in view of the principles laid down in Hero Devi versus State of HP and others. 6. Vide office order dated 22.06.2018, Director of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh, rejected the prayer of petitioner by holding that petitioner was not eligible for being conferred work charge status after eight years continuous service, as DPL was not covered under the judgment so passed in Hero Devi''s case (supra) as there was no work charge cadre available with the Department of Agriculture. 7. Thereafter, petitioner filed OA No.1926 of 2019, before the learned Tribunal, which after the closure of the learned Tribunal, has been transferred to this Court. 8. The prayer of the petitioner in this case is that his case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.2415 of 2012, titled as Mathu Ram Versus Municipal Corporation and others as well as the judgment passed by the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal in OA No.1471 of 2016, titled as Tilak Raj Versus State of H.P. and others. In addition, besides praying for setting aside of orders dated 26.02.2014 and 22.06.2018, he has also prayed for issuance of directions for regularization of his services after completion of eight years as daily wage worker. 9. In my considered view, the petitioner in fact on account of his own act and conduct is not liable for grant of either of the reliefs prayed for. As, I have already mentioned hereinabove, the services of the petitioner were regularized w.e.f. 17.08.2006 in the year 2006. First time, he assailed the conferment of said regularization on the ground that his services should have regularized w.e.f. 01.01.2003 is in the year 2012 i.e. after six years of his regularization. 10. On a pointed query of the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy as to why it took six years for the petitioner to challenge his regularization. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that as in the year 2006, learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal was functional and as the grievances of the petitioner indeed was a service matter, therefore, there was a limitation prescribed for challenging the order so passed by the Court and the same in terms of Administrative Tribunal was one year. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that as in the year 2006, learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal was functional and as the grievances of the petitioner indeed was a service matter, therefore, there was a limitation prescribed for challenging the order so passed by the Court and the same in terms of Administrative Tribunal was one year. In other words, the petitioner should have had challenged his regularization within one year as from the date when the order of regularization was issued before the learned erstwhile Tribunal. That admittedly was not done and after six years a writ petition was filed. The writ so filed by the petitioner was not decided on the merit and was disposed of on the statement so made on behalf of the petitioner that the case was covered by the judgment of Rakesh Kumar''s case (supra). 11. Pursuant to the examination as was ordered by this Court, the Authority concerned has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that there was no work charge establishment in the department of Agriculture and accordingly the work charge status could not be conferred upon the petitioner nor he was entitled for regularization from the year 2003. This rejection dated 26.02.2014 was assailed before the learned Tribunal by the petitioner by way of OA (D) 333 of 2017 after almost three years. This original application undoubtedly was time barred as the same was not filed within one year as from the date of passing of the order by the Authority concerned. 12. Be that as it may, even this original application was not disposed of on merit by the learned Tribunal and on the request of the petitioner it was disposed of with a direction to the Authorities to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the law laid down by the learned Tribunal in Hero Devi Versus State of H.P. and others'' case (supra). 13. Thereafter, the respondents-authority vide order dated 22.06.2018 have again rejected the case of the petitioner by holding that he was not similarly situated as Hero Devi, who incidently was not even serving in the Agriculture Department, but was employee of the Forest Department and it was reiterated by the Authority concerned that there was no work charge establishment in the Agriculture Department nor there were any sanctioned posts of work charge in the department. This order was thereafter, assailed as I have already mentioned above by filing of an original application. 14. The fact of the matter remains that as the first petition filed by the petitioner feeling aggrieved by the factum of his being regularized w.e.f. 17.08.2006 instead of 01.01.2003 was after six years and there is no valid justification on record as to what took the petitioner to take six years to approach the Court of Law, his case is seriously hit by delays and latches. The subsequent adjudication in my considered view cannot cure this inherent defect. Observing that the first petition filed by him was hit by delays and latches would be a mild expression because as admittedly, learned Tribunal was in existence at the time when the order of regularization of petitioner was filed and as no original application was filed within the statutory period, his claim had in fact become time barred. 15. The prayer of the petitioner is of regularization w.e.f. 01.01.2003. In case the relief being prayed for by the petitioner is granted to him, then the seniority of the employees as between 01.01.2003 and 17.08.2006, but natural would be disturbed. Who are those employees, the Court does not knows. None of them stands impleaded as a party respondent before this Court. Further the effect of regularization will have consequential effects also, such as the right of promotion because by virtue of grant of regularization from an anterior date, petitioner shall become eligible for promotion from an anterior date. Herein also the persons who as on 17.08.2006, were senior to him would be adversely affected. Besides this, they are not even before this Court. 16. Therefore, as this Court is of the view that the initial petition filed by the petitioner was hit by delays and latches and the petitioner did not approach the Court for redressal of his grievances within some reasonable time, no relief at this stage, as prayed for in this petition, can be granted. 17. In addition, the earlier writ petition as well as original application filed by the petitioner were not contested on merit. Both were got disposed of as purportedly covered matters. During the course of arguments of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any patent illegality in order dated 22.06.2018. 17. In addition, the earlier writ petition as well as original application filed by the petitioner were not contested on merit. Both were got disposed of as purportedly covered matters. During the course of arguments of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any patent illegality in order dated 22.06.2018. Earlier order passed by the Authority dated 26.02.2014 was not pressed on merit when OA (D) No.333 of 2017 titled as Jindu Ram Versus State of H.P. and another was got disposed of by the petitioner as a covered case. All these factors when taken together, lead to only one conclusion that at this stage, the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be considered as the matter has become highly belated on account of the conduct of the petitioner. 18. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.