IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 7519/2011 Date of decision: 12.12. 2011 1. Sh. Mehar Singh son of Sh. Molak Ram R/o village Mool Koti, PO Mahot Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. presently working as Chowkidar (on contractual basis) in HRTC Local Unit-II Dhalli Shimla -12. 2. Sh. Partap Singh son of Shri Mahant Ram resident of village and PO Kot Tehsil Sarkaghat District Mandi, H.P. presently working as Peon (On contractual basis in Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Head Office Shimla -3. 3. Sh. Hem Chand son of Shri Chet Ram Sharma, village and PO Hanuman Badog Tehsil Arki District Solan, H.P. presently working as Peon (on contractual basis) in HRTC, Head Office, Shimla -3. 4. Sh. Naresh Kumar son of Shri Chet Ram Sharma, village and PO Hanuman Badog Tehsil Arki District Solan, H.P. presently working as Peon (on contractual basis) in HRTC, Workshop Rural Unit-III Dhalli, Shimla -12. 5. Sh. Rajesh Kumar son of Shri Parmod Resident of village Kawalag PO Beolia Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. presently working as Cushion Maker (on contractual basis at Division Workshop Tara Devi, Shimla. …..Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Director, Shimla -3. …Respondent. CIVIL WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. _______________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - For the Petitioners: Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Surinder Singh, J (Oral) The petitioners, by means of this petition seek quashing of Annexure P7 dated 15.3.2011, passed by the respondent-corporation whereby their representations for regularization were rejected further with a direction to consider their cases for regularization as per the policy/instructions of the State Government. 2. The petitioners were engaged in the respondent-corporation on different dates and posts, as follows:- Sr. No.1 Name of petitioner Date of engagement Post 1. Mehar Singh May 1995 Chowkidar 2. Partap Singh 2.1.1997 Peon 3. Hem Chand 15.10.1998 Peon 4. Naresh Kumar 16.9.1991 Peon 5. Rajesh Kumar 19.8.1998 Cushion Maker 3. The respondent-corporation despite availability of work, funds and sanctioned posts had been engaging part time contractual workers under different categories of class IV, giving them due and - 3 - admissible wages. Thus CWP No. 285 of 1993 Prem Kumar and others vs. HRTC and another was filed in this Court and vide order dated 20.7.1995 respondents were directed to consider the case of its employees and other similarly situated persons, on regular basis and prepare a regular scheme. However, vide Annexure P1, services of daily waged part time contractual workers were regularized between 7.6.2000 to 2002 but the services of the petitioners were terminated. Accordingly they raised “industrial dispute” and the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court decided the references in their favour, they were ordered to be reinstated with all consequential benefits, including seniority and continuity in service. The respondent-corporation laid challenge to it by filing a writ in this Court which was dismissed by the Division Bench upholding the Labour Court award. The SLP against it is also stated to have been dismissed by the apex Court. Accordingly, there was no other option left to the respondent but to re-engage them. These facts are admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent to be correct but now the respondent-corporation has come up with the new plea which was not taken earlier that the petitioners were appointed without - 4 - following the proper procedure, therefore, no relief can be granted to them. 4. The respondent-corporation has followed the regularization policy (Annexure P2) of the State Government. It provides that contract appointees in all the departments on completion of 8 years of service as on 31.3.2009 shall be eligible for regularization. The petitioners alleged that they were ignored. Consequently, they made representations for considering their case for regularization but the respondent-corporation did not take any action. Thus, on 26.9.2010 they challenged their action by filing CWP No. 6500/2010 titled Mehar Singh and others versus HRTC. The Principal Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.11.2010 directed the respondents to look into the representations filed by the petitioners and take appropriate action thereon in accordance with law within a period four months from the date of production of copy of the judgment along with copy of the writ petition by the petitioners. The respondent-corporation rejected their representations on 15.3.2011 vide Annexure P7 hence the present petition. - 5 - 5. In the petition filed by Ranjeet Singh a similarly situate person [CWP No. 5403 of 2010] Annexure P6 decided on 2.5.2011 the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court took notice of above factual position and observed that the learned Labour Court in terms of the order quoted therein held that the petitioner was entitled to seniority for the period the workman was out of job. The only relief which was not granted to him was of back-wages. It was also observed that since seniority was granted by the learned Labour Court which was upheld by this Court, the action on the part of the HRTC is wrong and it cannot sit over the judgment of this Court. This action is virtually contemptuous. Hence, respondents were directed to regularize the petitioner as per policy. 6. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, I have no reason(s) to differ with it, thus the petition is allowed and order Annexure P7 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to regularize the petitioners, as per policy/instructions of the State Government as has been done in case of similar situated persons in the past, and also in view the judgment of this Court in Ranjeet Singh’s case (supra) with all consequential benefits w.e.f. date - 6 - they complete 8 years of regular contractual service with the respondent- corporation. 7. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. December 12, 2011 (Surinder Singh), (cm) Judge