IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 4269/2008(OA 637/1997) Date of Decision: 24.4.2009. Sewa Kumari and others. Versus H.P.S.E.B. & another. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting2? No. For the petitioners : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) With the passage of time, cause of action only with regard to following reliefs survives: “/B/: That such or further reliefs, direct and/or consequential, to which the applicants are entitled as per the service rules, standing orders and Notifications of the State Govt. including the arrears of amounts due and admissible to the applicants on account of the retrospective regularization of the predecessor-in-interest of the applicants namely Sh. Kuldip Chand may ordered to be paid to the applicants with a time-bound direction alongwith other benefits of Death-Cum-retirement grathity, leave encashment, family pension etc, as are admissible to them. /C/: That the respondents may be directed to produce the entire records pertaining to the case and further they may also be burdened with the costs of this application.” The original petitioner, Sh. Kuldip Chand, filed the petition in 1997. He died on 11th May, 2003, hence, legal representatives were brought on record. Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? : 2 : The original petitioner was engaged as Meter Ledger Clerk on daily wages w.e.f. 28.10.1980. He continued with the respondent-Board to work as such till 23rd July, 1986 when his services were illegally terminated by the respondent-Board. The original petitioner approached the Labour Court and vide award dated 10.03.1995, Reference No.4 of 1988 was finally decided in his favour when the order of termination was set aside and he was reinstated with back wages. The respondents authorities did not comply with the said order in letter and spirit, hence, the original petitioner approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 630/96 titled Shri Kuldip Chand Vs. H.P.S.E.B. & another, which stood decided vide order dated 9.8.1996, wherein, the following direction was given: “In the result, we find merit in this writ petition and it is allowed. The respondent Board is directed to reinstate the petitioner in the capacity of Meter Ledger Clerk w.e.f. 4.4.1995 in pursuance to award dated 10.3.1995. No costs.” The consequential benefits were not accorded to the original petitioner, hence, he got issued legal notice dated 15th November, 1995. The original petitioner specifically took up the plea of his regularization as Meter Ledger Clerk. The respondents authorities failed to even respond to the same, hence, original petitioner was forced to knock the door of the Court by filing the present petition. In the petition, the original petitioner has specifically pleaded that since services of his juniors, namely, S/Sh. Prem Chand, Rattan Chand and Ms. Rashma Kumari, who were also appointed as daily waged Meter Ledger : 3 : Clerks, stood regularized since February, 1992, hence, his services be also regularized from the said date. The respondents in their reply have simply stated that the benefits of regularization, pay and allowances as well as assigning seniority cannot be given to the original petitioner. With regard to the aforesaid persons, the respondents have simply stated that they were appointed after their names were screened by the screening committee of the Board. That the original petitioner’s appointment is in compliance and conformity with the rules and procedure is not in dispute. The respondents have also not denied the fact that the aforesaid persons were junior to the original petitioner. Unfortunately, the original petitioner has been forced to approach the Court for redressal of his grievance on three occasions. The insensitive attitude of the respondent-Board towards the original petitioner is writ large. The apathy is appalling. The respondents ought to have considered the original petitioner’s request when it was specifically brought to their notice that persons junior to him were regularized. It is not the respondents’ case that the original petitioner was otherwise ineligible for regularization. Infact, this Court way back in 1996 itself had directed the reinstatement of the original petitioner in the capacity of Meter Ledger Clerk w.e.f. 4.4.1995. The original petitioner has uninterruptedly and satisfactorily served the respondents : 4 : since, 1980. There is nothing against him disentitling him from the relief of regularization. The stand taken by the respondent-Board, is totally untenable in law. In the facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to regularize the appointment of Shri Kuldip Chand as Meter Ledger Clerk from the date when persons junior to him, namely, S/Sh. Prem Chand, Rattan Chand and Ms. Rashma Kumari were regularized. As a corollary of the same, the respondents are also directed to disburse all consequential benefits to present petitioners within a period of three months from today, failing which, they shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum. The present petition is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.11,000/-. (Sanjay Karol) Judge. April 24, 2009. bhupender