Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 169 (HP)

Jagdish Kumar v. State of H. P.

2023-03-23

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2023
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “i. That the order dated 30.11.2018 at Annexure A21, whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected, may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii. That the petitioner may kindly be held entitled for the service benefits as available to the employees of the department of Language and Culture, Govt. of H.P. Shimla, particularly the benefit of GPF Scheme instead of EPF, as recommended by the respondent No.4 to the respondent No.1, at Annexure P8 dated 19.02.2015.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that initially he was appointed as a Clerk in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur, H.P., on 15.03.1987, on daily wage basis. He was deputed thereafter to perform his duties as such in Baba Balak Nath Temple, Deotsidh, initially for one month, but he continued to serve as such in the temple trust. Vide Annexure P4, i.e. order dated 06.02.1996, the services of the petitioner alongwith 113 other persons were regularized in the Trust. The services of the petitioner were regularized as a Clerk. The petitioner subsequently made a representation that as his initially appointment was in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, therefore, he be treated as a government employee for all intents and purposes and he be also granted all the benefits which are accruable to a government employee. Alternatively, he also prayed that his services be regularized in the government department. Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of GPF. As nothing was done, the petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No.1101 of 2017A, titled as Jagdish Kumar Versus State of H.P. and another, which was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court in terms of order dated 30.05.2017 (Annexure P9), wherein a direction was issued to the competent authority to consider the request of the petitioner. Thereafter, vide Annexure P21, order dated 30.11.2018, the representation of the petitioner has been dismissed by Secretary, LAC, to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled for service benefits as are available to the employees of Language, Art & Culture Department including GPF subscription, for the reason that the petitioner was regularized and subsequently promoted as per the Employees Service Rules of Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust. 3. 3. Feeling aggrieved by said decision of the authority concerned, the petitioner has filed this petition. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the competent authority is bad in law as the authority has erred in not appreciating that the petitioner was initially appointed in the office of Deputy Commissioner and he did not serve with Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust voluntarily. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that it was the Deputy Commissioner who ordered that the petitioner should serve as a Clerk with Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust. Thus, the petitioner was having no option but to abide by the order of Deputy Commissioner. Learned Senior Counsel has thus submitted that though the petitioner might have been regularized with Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust, yet this cannot take away from the petitioner his initial status of a daily wager who was engaged in the office of Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the present petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to give the service benefits to the petitioner as are available to the employees of the Department of Language & Culture including the benefits of GPF Scheme. 5. The petition is contested by respondents No.1 to 4State, inter alia, on the ground that as the services of the petitioner were regularized with Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust and this regularization was accepted by the petitioner without any protest, therefore, he is estopped from filing and maintaining the present petition. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that it is not as if the petitioner was engaged in the office of Deputy Commissioner by following the terms and process of recruitment. It appears that he was simply engaged as a daily wage Clerk and thereafter, he was sent to the Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust to perform the duties of a Clerk by Deputy Commissioner concerned. Learned Additional Advocate General further argued that the duties which were performed by the petitioner with Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust were not under any coercion or duress because nothing stopped him from raising objection to his being recruited with the Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust at the relevant time. Learned Additional Advocate General further argued that the duties which were performed by the petitioner with Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust were not under any coercion or duress because nothing stopped him from raising objection to his being recruited with the Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust at the relevant time. He also argued that as the petitioner accepted his regularization in the Trust without any protest, he is not estopped from claiming any benefit by stating that he was initially engaged as a daily wage worker in the office of Deputy Commissioner. Learned Additional Advocate General further argued that regularization of services of the petitioner was in the year 1996, whereas he started raking up the issue of grant of benefits akin to that of a government employee after his regularization after a period of more than fifteen years and there is no cogent explanation given in the petition for these delays and latches. Accordingly, a prayer has been made to dismiss the petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 has adopted the arguments of learned Additional Advocate General. 7. Having heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General as also learned counsel for respondent No.4 and after carefully perusing the pleadings as well as documents on record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs being prayed for by him. 8. Though, it is not much in dispute that the petitioner was initially engaged on daily wage basis in the year 1987 in the office of Deputy Commissioner, but fact of the matter still remains that his services were regularized in the year 1986 in Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust, Deotsidh. At the relevant time, he did not challenge his regularization in Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust, Deotsidh either by way of some representation to the authorities concerned or by filing appropriate petition etc. before the competent Court of law. The only inference, which can be drawn from the said conduct of the petitioner that he was satisfied with his regularization or not. Record demonstrates that the first time, the petitioner after his regularization took up the issue of his being treated as a government employee and conferred the benefits akin to a government employee was after about fifteen years. The only inference, which can be drawn from the said conduct of the petitioner that he was satisfied with his regularization or not. Record demonstrates that the first time, the petitioner after his regularization took up the issue of his being treated as a government employee and conferred the benefits akin to a government employee was after about fifteen years. There is no explanation coming forth in the writ petition as to why the representation was made after such a long time. Record further demonstrates that the representation of the petitioner was partly recommended by Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district to the effect that GPF benefits be granted to the petitioner. This Court fails to understand as to how the Deputy Commissioner could have made such recommendation as by making this recommendation, he lost sight of the fact that the petitioner was one amongst 113 persons who were regularized in the year 1996 by a single order with Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust, Deotsidh. This Court has no hesitation in observing that it appears that the communications were addressed by the Deputy Commissioner concerned to the higher authorities, with the motive to favour the petitioner. 9. Be that as it may, this Court will not traverse any further from what has been observed hereinabove, but suffice to say that as the services of the petitioner were regularized with Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust, Deotsidh, which regularization he accepted without any protest etc. he is estopped from claiming any reliefs claimed in the writ petition and further this Court otherwise also does not finds any infirmity in the order impugned, which stands passed by the authority concerned after correct appreciation of the factual matrix. 10. In view of the above discussion, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.