IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3557 of 2009 Date of decision: 14.7.2011 Pawan Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioners : Ms.Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr.Vivek Thakur, Addl.A.G. for Respondents. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) 1. The petitioner, by means of this petition, has prayed that the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla in Reference No.137 of 2004 be set-aside and the petitioner be granted the same benefits as have been given to the persons junior to him and who have even been regularized thereafter. 2. The State in its defence has taken a plea that in the cases of those persons in whose favour the erstwhile H.P. State Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 Administrative Tribunal had passed the orders, the Review Petitions had been filed. Therefore, on 21.4.2011 the following order was passed: “The State is directed to place on record the orders, if any, passed in the Review Petitions filed by it reference to which has been made in the reply of the State as well as in the order of the learned Tribunal. The State shall also produce the record to show whether the services of the persons who had filed such review petitions have been regularized or not.” 3. Today the record has been produced and it is found from the said record that even before the Review Petitions had been disposed of, 8 persons out of whom 7 persons are junior to the petitioner had already been regularized w.e.f. 28.8.2007 and 15.10.2007. 4. Therefore, it is obvious that whereas the services of the petitioner were terminated on 31.3.2000, 7 persons who were junior to him stand regularized. It is unfortunate that whereas the case of the petitioner was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to hear the matter but 3 in the other cases the Tribunal passed interim orders on the basis of which the persons who were junior to the petitioner continued to be in service. It would be travesty of justice if the petitioner who is similarly situate, if not better placed than his juniors is deprived of his right to claim reinstatement whereas his juniors have not only been reinstated but regularized also. 5. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed with the following directions: a) That the award of the Labour Court is set- aside; b) That the order of termination of the services of the petitioner is also set-aside. c) That the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service for the purpose of seniority and all other benefits except back wages. d) That the petitioner shall be regularized from the date on which his immediate juniors were regularized. 4 e) That as far as back wages are concerned, the petitioner shall be held entitled to back wages w.e.f. 5th October, 2009 the date when he filed the present petition in this Court. The back wages be paid to the petitioner latest by 31st October, 2011 failing which the State shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 5th October, 2009. July 14, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge