Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 965 (HP)

Tara Chand v. State of H. P.

2025-05-09

SATYEN VAIDYA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner for the grant of following substantive reliefs: “i) That the respondent may very kindly be directed to consider the petitioner for regularization as Clerk from the date of performing duties of Clerk. ii) That the respondent may be directed to pay wages of the Clerk w.e.f. 1993 from the date he is working as Clerk on the principal of equal pay for equal work. iii) That the respondent may further be directed to grant/release all benefits of regularization and arrears thereof along with interest @ 18% per annum.” 2. The case as set-up by the petitioner is that he was appointed as ‘Basta Bardar’ in February 1990. The petitioner had been made to discharge the duties of Clerk since 1993 when the post of Clerk had become vacant on retirement of Sh. Balak Ram. As per petitioner, he was discharging the duties of Copyist by preparing the copies of Mutations, Jamabandis, Missal- Hakiat, Field-book etc. In addition, he had been appearing before the Courts with the records of the Department as and when required and had also been maintaining P.R. Registers. It has also been averred that the petitioner while discharging the duties of Clerk had been making entries in Record Register No.12. 3. The petitioner filed CWP No. 356 of 2013 claiming the benefits of the post of Clerk since the year 1993, which came to be decided on 10.01.2013 with directions to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner. The respondents rejected the petitioner’s case, which forced the petitioner to again approach this Court by way of CWP No.4552 of 2013. The rejection order passed by the competent authority was quashed and set-aside and directions were issued to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner afresh. 4. In compliance, the Principal Secretary-cum-Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, allowed the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 05.03.2014 and recommended the appointment of petitioner as Clerk with immediate effect against a vacant post. The order was made prospective and petitioner was held entitled to the benefit of the post from the date of his joining. 4. In compliance, the Principal Secretary-cum-Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, allowed the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 05.03.2014 and recommended the appointment of petitioner as Clerk with immediate effect against a vacant post. The order was made prospective and petitioner was held entitled to the benefit of the post from the date of his joining. As a sequel to aforesaid order passed by the Principal Secretary-cum-Financial Commissioner (Revenue), respondent No.3 issued office order dated 22.03.2014 appointing the petitioner as Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.5910-20200 + 1900/- Grade Pay (PB-II) with immediate effect. 5. Aggrieved against the orders appointing the petitioner as Clerk with prospective effect, the instant petition has been filed and it has been claimed that petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Clerk w.e.f. 1993. A prayer has also been made to grant back wages. 6. The respondents have filed their reply. It has been admitted that the petitioner had been discharging the duties of Clerk, however, respondents have taken a stand that the petitioner had unauthorisedly been doing so without there being any order from the competent authority. 7. The petitioner filed rejoinder by reiterating his stand in the petition. Along with rejoinder, the petitioner placed on record certain documents to show that he had been working as Clerk. 8. The petitioner has also placed on record a communication dated 18.02.2013 from the Director Land Records, Himachal Pradesh to the Additional Chief Secretary (Rev.) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh as Annexure P-6. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner has been appointed as Clerk vide office order dated 22.03.2014 with prospective effect. The said order of appointment has been issued in compliance to order dated 05.03.2014 passed by the Principal Secretary-cum-Financial Commissioner (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and the said order had been passed in compliance to the order dated 03.07.2013 passed by this Court in CWP No. 4552 of 2013, which reads as under: “In these circumstances, we quash and set-aside Annexure P-5 and direct respondent No.1 to consider the representation of the petitioner afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The petitioner shall be granted an opportunity of hearing and to rely upon such other or further material in support of his case. The petitioner shall be granted an opportunity of hearing and to rely upon such other or further material in support of his case. Such decision be taken within eight weeks from today. Petition stands disposed of. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.” 11. The order dated 05.03.2014 passed by the Principal Secretary-cum-F.C. (Revenue) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, recorded a specific finding of fact as under: “5. I have carefully gone through the contents of the representation and comments offered by the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla and Director, Land Records as well as relevant record of the case. After careful consideration I hold that the petitioner has been doing the work relating to Class-III post in addition to duties prescribed for the post of Basta Bardar.” 12. Thus, the fact that the petitioner had been discharging the duties of Clerk cannot be now denied by the respondents. It also does not lie in their mouth to say that the petitioner had been doing so unauthorisedly. The acquiescence of the respondents is clearly inferable from the facts of the case as it cannot be believed that a Class-IV employee of his own would discharge the duties of Class-III post without concurrence of his superiors. 13. The question, however arrives, whether the petitioner can be granted the relief as prayed in the petition. The answer, in my considered view, has to be in negative, for the reasons detailed hereinafter. 14. The petitioner allegedly has been discharging the duties of Clerk since 1993. As per his own pleading, the petitioner approached this Court for the first time in the year 2013 by way of CWP No. 356 of 2013. There is nothing that has been placed on record by way of explanation as to why he had sought the legal remedy at such a belated stage. 15. As noticed above, the petitioner has placed reliance on document Annexure P-6 filed alongwith the rejoinder. Annexure P-6 is a communication dated 18.02.2013 addressed by the Director Land Records, Himachal Pradesh to the Additional Chief Secretary (Rev.) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in context of the issues raised by the petitioner from time to time. In the said communication, there is a clear mention that the petitioner was appointed as Basta Bardar on 28.02.1990 in the time scale of Rs.300-430. The petitioner was posted in the District Land Record Office. In the said communication, there is a clear mention that the petitioner was appointed as Basta Bardar on 28.02.1990 in the time scale of Rs.300-430. The petitioner was posted in the District Land Record Office. After revision of pay scales, the petitioner was allowed the pay scale of Rs.750-1350. The petitioner approached the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No.1365 of 2000 seeking pay scale of Rs.810-1440 +40 as special pay with effect from his initial appointment seeking parity with the post and scale of Record Lifters. The original application of the petitioner was dismissed on 31.03.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed CWP No.985 of 2005 in this Court and this Court had set-aside the order dated 31.03.2004 passed by the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal and directions were issued to the respondents to grant pay scale of Rs.810-1440 + 40 as special pay to the petitioner. The respondent-State Government is stated to have filed Special Leave Petition against the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 985 of 2005. 16. Thus, on one hand, the petitioner has failed to render any explanation as to delay of about 20 years in filing the petition before this Court wherein he raised the claim for appointment as Clerk w.e.f. 1993 and on the other, he has failed to disclose the factum of filing O.A. No.1365 of 2000 and CWP No.985 of 2005 seeking special pay at par with the scale of Record Lifters. In such circumstances, not only that the claim of the petitioner is barred by delay and laches, he will also be dis-entitled from making such claim in view of his earlier litigation in which neither such claim was made nor any liberty was sought to seek the claim at subsequent stage. 17. In result, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.