IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 5679 of 2008 Decided on : 03.03.2.2011 Amreesh Kanwar ..… Petitioner. Versus Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry... Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Virender Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. V.K.Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7 (i) to (v):- “(i) That the impugned office order dated 7.1.99 i.e Annexure : A-4 may be quashed and set aside; (ii) That the respondent University may be directed to permit the applicant to discharge the duties of Jr. Engineer; (iii) That the respondent University may be directed to continue to engage the applicant as Jr.Engineer till his regularization; (iv) That the respondent University may be directed to regularize the applicant as Jr. Engineer w.e.f. 21.5.96 with all consequential benefits like arrears of salary, seniority etc.; 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 (v) That the respondent University may be directed to pay the applicant regular pay scale of Jr. Engineer w.e.f 21.5.96 to 8.5.98 on the principle of “equal pay for equal work”.” 2. The respondent has taken the following stand vide paras 3 and 6(III) of the reply:- “3. That the contents of this para are absolutely wrong and hence emphatically denied. It is denied that the applicant has been working as Junior Engineer since 18/12/95 as alleged. The applicant was initially engaged as a daily paid work Supervisor w.e.f 18/12/95 and continued as such till 20/4/96 whereafter he was engaged as a Junior Engineer on muster Roll basis w.e.f 21/4/96 to carry out the design work of various on going works w which he did till 20/10/96. Again, the applicant was re-engaged as a Junior Engineer w.e.f 1st January, 97 to 31st December, 1997 and w.e.f. 31/3/98 to 7/7/98 on daily paid basis. The applicant was further appointed as JE on adhoc basis Annexure A-2 for a period of six months with the clear stipulation that the adhoc appointment will not entitle him for claiming regular appointment. Since the design work of various on going works on which the applicant was appointed on adhoc basis had been completed, hence he was relieved of his duties vide Annexure A-4. The orders Annexure A-4 being perfect in law deserves to be upheld by the Hon’ble Tribunal. 6(III) In reply to this para, it is submitted that there exists no post of Junior Engineer (Design) in the respondent University. The letter dated 9-6-98 Annexure A-1 was sent to the Comptroller by the Executive Engineer © who was also holding the 3 charge of the Estate Officer at the relevant time without knowing the fact that there was no such post of JE (Design) in the respondent University. As a matter of fact ,the post of Junior Engineer lying vacant under Scheme HNP-034-34 “Estt. Of Construction Division” is of JE (Civil) and not Design as alleged. It is relevant to submit here that in order to get the design work completed of the various works, the adhoc appointment of the applicant Annexure A-2 was made against the vacant post under the scheme aforesaid for the purpose of drawl of salary. Since there exists no post of JE(Design), hence there was no question of filling up the same on regular basis. Otherwise also, the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide its letter No. Fin.1-C(14)1/83 dated 8th July, 19098 as also further notified by the University, has imposed a complete ban on the direct recruitment. A copy of the letter is filed herewith and marked as Annexure R-1. It is also relevant to submit here that one seniormost Junior Engineer Shri S V Rastogi is already posted in the design cell and there as no work available which could warrant or justify the extension in the adhoc appointment of the applicant. Rest of the contents call for no reply.” 3. Rejoinder refuting the above stand on behalf of the respondent and reiterating the averments set up in the petition has been filed. 4. In view of the above reply, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance, he shall be free to make a representation supported by documents along with copy of this judgment to the respondent/competent authority within one month 4 from today and the said respondent shall consider the same and take final decision within further two months in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. 5. The petition as also pending CMPs, if any, stand disposed of in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 3rd March, 2011. Lsp*