IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 12564 of 2008. Decided on: 29.4.2011. ___________________________________________________________ Balwant Singh. … Petitioner. Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and ors. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7 (i) and (ii):- “ (i). That the act of the respondents in not appointing the applicant on regular basis may kindly be declared illegal, arbitrary, contrary, discriminatory, unreasonable, unconstitutional and unsustainable in the eyes of law. (ii). The respondents may kindly be directed to appoint the applicant on regular basis w.e.f. the completion of eight years service on part time basis alongwith all consequential benefits. OR In alternative the respondents may be directed to appoint the applicant on regular basis w..e.f. 20.6.2000 when the immediate juniors to the applicant have been appointed on regular basis on completion of eight years part time 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 basis service, alongwith all consequential benefits.” 2. In reply on behalf of the respondents, the following stand has been taken vide para 6 (i), (ii), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii) and (xi):- “(i). Contents of this sub para of the application are partly admitted and partly denied. It is submitted that the applicant was engaged as washer boy on 1.11.1987 and paid remuneration upto 14.12.92. Thereafter he worked as commission agent at Kalka under Nalagarh Unit w.e.f. 4.1993 to 6/1994. Thereafter the applicant has filed a petition before the Hon’ble Labour Court and as per the order of the Hon’ble Court dated 29.7.1998 the applicant was re- engaged w.e.f. 11.8.1999 as washer boy/labourer on day to day basis with the fixed remuneration @ 2000/- per month. Rest of the contents of this para are wrong, false, incorrect and hence denied. (ii). Contents of this sub para of the application are partly admitted and partly denied. It is submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has passed the order dated 16.7.2003 to pay him back wages w.e.f. 22.5.1996 to 10.8.1999 and in compliance of the said order the respondents have paid Rs. 23,187/- for 38 months and 20 days to the applicant vide office order No. 4694 dated 9.9.2003. He was re-engaged w.e.f. 11.8.1999 in compliance of order of the Hon’ble Labour Court and High Court. Rest of the contents of this para are wrong, false, incorrect and hence denied. (v) That the contents of this sub para are admitted being a matter of record. (vi) & (vii). That the contents of this sub para are admitted to be correct to the extent that the applicant 3 was relieved from Solan to Hamirpur w.e.f. 31.8.2002 in public interest vide office order No. 5068 as washer boy. Rest of the contents of these paras are wrong, false, incorrect and hence denied. It is also admitted that the respondent Corporation has appointed a number of part time workers on regular basis. (viii) That the contents of this sub para are wrong, false, incorrect and hence denied. It is submitted that the applicant was engaged by the respondents Corporation as part time worker as and when his services were required and he has not completed eight years of service as o n 31.3.2000. (xi). That the contents of this sub para are admitted to the extent that Sh. Rajesh Kumar and Geeta Ram Chaudhary posted in the Solan Unit were regularized w.e.f. 20.6.2000 and 7.6.2000 respectively after completion of eight years of service but the applicant has not completed eight years service continuously. Rest of the contents of this para are wrong, false, incorrect and hence denied in toto.” 3. The record reveals that the petitioner was engaged by respondent-Corporation as workman on 1.11.1987. However, later on his services were terminated w.e.f. 29.12.1992. Being aggrieved, he took the matter to the Labour Court, which ordered his re-instatement, but without back wages. Not satisfied with the decision of the Labour Court, both the parties, i.e. the petitioner as also the respondent-Corporation carried the matter to this Court by way of CWP Nos. 752 and 793 of 1998, which were disposed of vide a common judgment dated 16.7.2003, Annexure A-1, operative part whereof is as under:- “Therefore, the writ petition No. 793 of 1998 is allowed and the award dated 29.7.1998 is modified to 4 the extent that the respondents-workmen are ordered to be reinstated and held entitled to back wages w.e.f. 22.5.1996 when reference was received by the Labour Court at the rate being awarded to them at the time of their termination. They will also be given seniority in the category in which they were engaged. No order as to costs.” 4. Thus, it is manifest that apart from granting the prayer of the petitioner for back wages w.e.f. 22.5.1996, his claim for seniority was also allowed. 5. In view of the above, the contention on behalf of the respondents in para 6 (xi) of the reply that the petitioner has not completed the requisite service of eight years, does not hold good. 6. In view of the above, the petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization on completion of eight years of service on part time basis in terms of the aforesaid judgment dated 16.7.2003 handed out by this Court in CWP Nos. 752 and 793 of 1998, Annexure A-1, within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner. It goes without saying that consequential benefits, if any, shall ensue accordingly and shall be payable to the petitioner within further one month along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, failing which higher interest at the rate of 9% per annum shall be payable. 7. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. April 29, 2011. (cr) 5