Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 471 (HP)

Jai Singh v. State of H. P.

2019-04-25

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. This judgment shall dispose of both the appeals involving identical questions of law and facts. 2. Appellants herein (the writ petitioners) remained working as DDT Helpers in the Department of Health and Family Welfare to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. They continued to be engaged on daily waged basis as DDT Beldars by respondents No. 2 & 3 in Mandi District during the period from 1987-1994. They were disengaged in the month of September, 1994. The appellants-petitioners in LPA No. 174 of 2015 preferred CWP No. 719 of 1995 titled Jeet Ram & ors. Vs. State of H.P. & ors in this Court. The same was disposed of vide judgment dated 14.11.1995 with the following directions: “ (i) That Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh shall issue instructions to all concerned more particularly Chief Medical Officers of the Districts and Block Development Officers to maintain a seniority list of DDT Beldars. (ii) That said seniority list shall be duly published in the notice board of the Block Development Officer and also at the office of Chief Medical Officer of the District and appropriate publicity shall also be given in the neighbouring places where such Beldars are working. (iii) That whenever the season starts appointments shall be offered according to the seniority.” 3. It is thus seen that in the previously instituted writ petition, a direction was issued to respondents to prepare seniority list of DDT Beldars, give due publicity to the same with an idea that the petitioners come to know about their place in the seniority and that whenever the season starts next, the appointments of DDT Beldars be offered according to their seniority. 4. It seems that the directions so issued by this Court were not complied with by the respondents. Therefore, the appellant-writ petitioner Jai Singh in LPA No. 173 of 2015 has preferred CWP No. 2728 of 2012 whereas appellants-petitioners Jeet Singh and Tilak Raj in connected appeal preferred CWP No. 3006 of 2012. Both the writ petitions came to be decided by learned Single Judge, though on 10.9.2014, however, by separate judgments. Learned Single Judge has again reiterated the directions hereinabove of this Court in previously instituted writ petition No. 719 of 1995 in verbatim. Both the writ petitions came to be decided by learned Single Judge, though on 10.9.2014, however, by separate judgments. Learned Single Judge has again reiterated the directions hereinabove of this Court in previously instituted writ petition No. 719 of 1995 in verbatim. However, the claim of the petitioners qua their appointment against Class-IV posts on regular basis was declined on the ground that the appointments against public posts are governed by Recruitment and Promotion Rules. 5. Both the sets of appellants-petitioners had preferred review petitions also seeking modification of the judgments under challenge in these appeals, however, learned Single Judge has dismissed the review petitions also vide judgment Annexure A-2 to these appeals. 6. The grounds of challenge to the impugned judgment in the present appeals are that the claim of the appellants-writ petitioners for their regularization against Class-IV posts has erroneously been rejected by learned Single Judge. The findings so recorded, according to them are contrary to the judgment passed by this Court in previously instituted writ petition. Once the respondents in the reply have admitted regularization of the services of the DDT Helpers by them, on seniority, such benefit could have not been denied to the writ petitioners. The impugned judgment, therefore, has been sought to be quashed and set aside being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7. On 30.10.2018, while hearing these appeals, the following orders came to be passed: “In the instant case, we are concerned with the issue as to whether the writ petitioner, namely, Jeet Ram son of Shri Mani Ram and Tilak Raj son of Shri Shiv Ram were senior to Shri Ram Dass and Tek Chand, particulars, whereof are mentioned in para-1 of the review petition or not. Let the seniority list prepared in terms of directions contained in judgment dated 14th November, 1995, rendered in CWP No. 719 of 1995 titled Jeet Ram and others versus State of HP and others, be made available on 20.11.2018. List on 20.11.2018.” 8. Consequently written instructions were placed on record by learned Addl. Advocate General and when the matter heard further on 8.1.2019, the following orders came to be passed on that day: “On hearing this matter for sometime, it transpired that in the seniority list enclosed to the written instruction, the date (s) of engagement of DDT beldars, as such, has not been reflected. Advocate General and when the matter heard further on 8.1.2019, the following orders came to be passed on that day: “On hearing this matter for sometime, it transpired that in the seniority list enclosed to the written instruction, the date (s) of engagement of DDT beldars, as such, has not been reflected. Learned Deputy Advocate General has produced the register containing the date of engagement. Let the date showing the engagement of each beldar in the seniority list be prepared separately under the signature of the competent authority and placed on record within three weeks. List on 27.02.2019.” 9. Learned Addl. Advocate General has accordingly placed on record further written instructions highlighting therein that the dates of engagement of DDT beldars were neither available in the office of Block Medical Officers in the State nor in the office of Chief Medical Officer Mandi District at Mandi. We have, therefore, considered the matter in the light of the written instructions dated 29.12.2018 and the seniority list of beldars annexed thereto placed on record by learned Addl. Advocate General on 1.1.2019. It has rightly been pointed out that in the judgment dated 14.11.1995 passed in previously instituted writ petition No. 719 of 1995, no directions were issued to the respondents to regularize the services of the DDT beldars because only directions were to prepare their seniority, give due publicity to the same and during next season reengage them strictly in accordance with their seniority. Admittedly, the season to spray DDT in the area used to commence in April, every year and end in the month of September. In the written instructions, there is reference of some judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 1864 of 1995 on 20.11.1995 directing thereby the respondents to consider the DDT helpers for appointment against Class-IV posts as per Rules. The seniority list annexed to the written instructions reveals that the respondents had maintained the seniority of DDT helpers, 71 in number. Out of them, only 18 beldars were eligible to be considered against the post of Class-IV as per the then existing and prevailing R & P Rules. The name of Ram Dass, appointed against Class- IV post figures at Sr. No. 2 in the seniority list whereas that of the appellants-writ petitioners Jai Singh at Sr. No. 43, Jeet Ram at 47 and Tilak Raj at 57. The name of Ram Dass, appointed against Class- IV post figures at Sr. No. 2 in the seniority list whereas that of the appellants-writ petitioners Jai Singh at Sr. No. 43, Jeet Ram at 47 and Tilak Raj at 57. They all were even not eligible also under the rules having educational qualification only up to 5th standard and 4th standard. Whereas, Sh. Ram Dass, their senior was eligible for being considered against the post of Class-IV. 10. Thus, in view of the position so highlighted by the respondents in the written instructions, no case to interfere with the judgment (s) under challenge in these appeals is made out. Learned Single Judge rather has applied its mind twice; firstly at the time of disposal of the writ petitions and secondly when the review petitions preferred by both sets of appellants-writ petitioners were dismissed. The judgment (s) under challenge, therefore, cannot be said to be legally and factually unsustainable. The same rather are upheld and these appeals being devoid of merit are dismissed.