IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 15572/2008. Decided on: 20.11.2009 Chet Ram and others …Petitioners -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh & Others. …Respondents. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Acting Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?. No ______________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Adarsh K. Vashishta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General. _______________________________________________________________________ The petitioners were engaged as Beldars in the respondents Department with effect from 7.12.2006. However, the respondents have disputed the nomenclature of the post held by the petitioners. According to the respondents, the petitioners are working as casual labourers. Mr. Adarsh K.Vashishta has argued that the respondents are giving fictional breaks to his clients to prevent them to compete 240 days in a calendar year though the work is always available in the Forests Department. He then contended that it amounts to unfair labour practice. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the petitioners are engaged as and when the work is available in the Forests Department. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully. A bare perusal of Annexure R-1 reveals that the petitioners are being employed intermittently and are not being permitted to complete 240 days in a year. The petitioners at no given time have been told that the work against which they have been engaged is seasonal. It is desirable that as and when the casual labourer is engaged, it must be shown in the muster roll or by way of separate letter that the engagement is upto a specific date and showing the nature of the work. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Abdul Kadir and another versus Director General of Police, Assam and others, (2009) 6 SCC 611 have held that the practice of giving artificial breaks from time to time and reappointing the same staff is contrary to service jurisprudence. Their Lordships have declared departmental circular, under which breaks were given, invalid. Their Lordships have held as under : “16. We may next consider the challenge to the procedure of annual termination and reappointment introduced by the circular dated 17.3.1995. The PIF Scheme and PIF Additional Scheme were introduced by Government of India. The scheme does not contemplate or require such periodical termination and re- appointment. Only ex-servicemen are eligible to be selected under the scheme and that too after undergoing regular selection process under the Scheme. They joined the scheme being under the impression that they will be continued as long as the PIF Additional Scheme was continued. The artificial annual breaks and reappointments were introduced by the state agency entrusted with the operation of the Scheme. This Court has always frowned upon artificial breaks in service. 18. We are therefore of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in observing that the process of termination and re- appointment every year should be avoided and the appellants should be continued as long as the Scheme continues, but purely on ad hoc and temporary basis, co-terminus with the scheme. The circular dated 17.3.1995 directing artificial breaks by annual terminations followed by fresh appointment, being contrary to the PIF Additional Scheme and contrary to the principles of service jurisprudence, is liable to be is quashed. 26. The appeal is allowed in part accordingly as follows: (I) The circular dated 17.3.1995 is quashed. The appellants shall not be subjected to annual terminations and re- appointments (subject to observations in para 8 above). (II) The benefit of this order will be available to other similarly situated ad hoc border staff, even if they have not approached the Court for relief. In view of the above, the interlocutory applications for impleading are disposed of as having become infructuous. (III) This order will not however come in the way of ad hoc employees working as Border staff, being subjected to any periodical medical examination or service review to assess their fitness and suitability for continuation.” Consequently, in view of the definitive law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents are directed to restrain from giving artificial breaks to the petitioners and they must show in the muster roll or by way of separate letter that the engagement of the petitioner, is up to a specific date with details of the nature of the work permanent/seasonal. In view of the above observations/directions the petition is disposed of. No costs. (R.B. Misra) Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 20.11.2009 awasthi