CWP(T) No. 13655/2008 12.11.2009 Present: Ms. Aruna Sharma, Advocate vice counsel for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional General for the respondents. The petitioner's father died on 7.8.1996. The petitioner applied for employment assistance on compassionate grounds. The case was examined in the office of Deputy Inspector General of Police (Sourthern Range). Respondent No. 3 was redirected to resubmit the case after removing shortcomings. In the meantime, the Government has raised the educational qualification for recruitment for the post of constable from matriculation to 10+2. Thus, he was found ineligible for the post of constable. The petitioner was informed of the same by the Deputy Inspector General of Police on 6.2.2006. The Department has also requested the petitioner to inform whether he will like to be considered as candidate for the post of Clerk or Peon. The petitioner has not responded to this letter. Since the petitioner was not in possession of the essential qualification i.e. 10+2 for the post of constable, he could not be offered appointment on compassionate grounds. Moreover, the bread earner has died in the year 1996 and we are in 2009. The purpose of granting the compassionate employment is to tide over the crises immediately after the death of the bread earner. Consequently, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge November 12,2009 *awasthi* CWP(T) No. 14725 of 2008 10.11.2009 Present: Mr. Tarlok Cjauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Mr. J.K. Verma and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate Generals, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Tarlok Jamwal, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the present petition has become infructuous with the passage of time. Dismissed as infructuous. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge November 10,2009 (bhupender) CWP(T) No. 12954 of 2008 20.11.2009 Present: Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General for the respondents. It is not disputed by Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General that the present lis is covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Nek Ram and Others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, CWP(T) No. 14232 of 2008, decided on 17th November, 2009. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of. Consequences shall ensue. No costs. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge November 20,2009 (Bhupender/ls) CWP(T) No. 15049 of 2008 12.11.2009 Present: Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Sh. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate Generals, for the respondents. The petitioner has made a representation to the competent authority vide Annexure A-2, dated 15.06.2006. The same has not been decided till date. Consequently, the competent authority is directed to decide the representation made by the petitioner on 15.06.2006 within a period of eight weeks from today by a speaking/self-contained order. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge November 12,2009 (bhupender) CWP(T) No. 14850 of 2008 12.11.2009 Present: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate for the petitioner. Sh. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate Generals, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. K.C. Sankhyan, Advocate vice Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the present petition has become infructuous due to subsequent events. Dismissed as infructuous. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge November 12,2009 (bhupender) CWP(T) No. 14754 of 2008 11.11.2009 Present: Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Sh. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate Generals, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. P.P. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the present petition has become infructuous with the passage of time. Dismissed as infructuous. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge November 11,2009 (bhupender) CWP(T) No. 15131 of 2008 06.11.2009 Present: Mr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advoate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Ms. Shalini Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. The petitioner has already completed two years and eight months at the present place of positing. Consequently, the Court will not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge November 06,2009. bhupender CWP(T) No. 1055 of 2008 05.11.2009 Present: Mr. S.S. Sood, Advocate vice Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner . The inquiry officer was appointed. He has submitted his report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty upon the petitioner. She preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority has rejected the same on 29.2.2008. A bare perusal of the order reveals that it does not contain any reasons. It is settled law by now that order passed by the appellate authority must contain reasons. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held in Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and Others, (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570 that the order passed by the appellate authority should be speaking one. Their Lordships have held as under: “Furthermore, the order of disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the criminal Court on the basis of selfsame evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The material brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. As the report of the enquiry officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inference drawn by the enquiry officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be substitute for legal proof. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.2.2008 (Annexure-A-12) is quashed and set aside. The appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner afresh within a period of eight weeks from today by a self contained/speaking order. With these directions/observations, the petition stands disposed of. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge November 12,2009 (bhupender) CWP(T) No. 12221/2008 19.11.2009 Present: Mr. Narinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. The petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No. 4. The suitability of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 was adjudged by a duly constituted Selection Committee. The petitioner has secured 48.77 marks and respondent No. 4 has secured 48.96 marks. The petitioner and respondent No. 4 have been allowed marks on the basis of experience. The appointment was made on a contract basis. Since the suitability has been adjudged by a duly constituted Selection committee, this Court cannot reassess the merits of the candidates afresh. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge November 19,2009. *awasthi* CWP(T) No. 1071 of 2008 04.11.2009 Present: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate, for the respondent. The notice was issued to the respondent-University on 26.5.2008. the University has not chosen to file any reply. The case of the petitioner, in nut-shell, is that the subscription of G.P.F. has been reduced from Rs. 10,000/- to 6,000/- per month without his consent. This fact is not disputed by the respondent-University. Consequently, the action of the respondent- University of reducing the G.P.F. Subscription is declared illegal. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. However, it is open to the respondent-University to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge November 04, 2009. *awasthi* CWP(T) No. 14891/2008 11.11.2009 Present: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3. The petitioner has assailed the action of the respondents whereby temporary posts were filled up for a period of one year. The posts were filled up in the year 2007 and we are in 2009. However, in the interest of justice, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law as and when fresh posts of Care Taken Imam are filled up by the respondents. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. No costs. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge November 11, 2009. *awasthi* CWP(T) No. 14324/2008 11.11.2009 Present: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. The pay of the petitioner was fixed vide Annexure A-1. However, the same was re-fixed vide Annexures A-2 and A-3. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been heard before the issuance of Annexures A-2 and A-3. The petitioner has been visited with civil and evil consequences. Consequently, the Annexures A-2 and A-3 are quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. However, the liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. No costs. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge November 11, 2009. *awasthi* CWP(T) No. 15366/2008 11.11.2009 Present: Mr. P.S. Chandel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. The petitioner's husband went missing while working as Junior Engineer. He had been allotted Government accommodation. The respondents have issued Annexure A-1 directing the petitioner to vacate the accommodation. The operation of this order was stayed by the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 11.7.2007. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has failed to point out any law/rules on the basis of which the petitioner can be permitted to retain the accommodation. However, we are of the considered view that the respondents should proceed in the matter in compassionate manner. We are dealing with the case of young lady whose husband has gone missing. Accordingly, by taking extreme lenient view, we direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to retain the accommodation for a period of nine months and to consider the case of the petitioner for suitable post on compassionate grounds in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case within a reasonable period. Accordingly, in view of the observations/directions made hereinabove, the petition is disposed. No costs. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge November 11, 2009. *awasthi* CWP(T) No. 15677/2008 12.11.2009 Present: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. The petitioner is seeking directions to the respondents by way of this petition to consider his case for regularization. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate submits that his client has already completed eight years of continuous service with minimum 240 days in each calendar year. We have gone through the year-wise details of mandays in respect of the petition. He has worked continuously from 1999 to 2005 and has completed 240 days in every calendar year. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan further submits that the petitioner has also completed 240 days in 2006 as well. This position is not disputed by Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General. Since the petitioner has completed more than eight years of continuous service and has worked for 240 days in each calendar year, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization within eight weeks from today. With these directions/observations, the petition is disposed of. No costs. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge November 12, 2009. *awasthi* CWP(T) No. 15365/2008 10.11.2009 Present: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate for respondent No. 4 Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate submits that in view of the reply filed by the respondents, the main grievance of the petitioner stands redressed. However, she further submits that a sum of Rs. 2,000/- has not been released to the petitioner. Respondents are directed to release the said amount to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. In view of this, the petition stands disposed of. No costs. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge November 10, 2009. *awasthi* CWP(T) No. 14093/2009 12.11.2009 Present: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General for the respondents. The petitioner has sought direction to the respondents not to resort to appointment by way of PTA. According to the reply filed by the respondent -State, the appointments are made by the respective PTAs and the State Government only releases grant-in- aid. Moreover, it is further stated in the reply that it is difficult for the State Government to fill up the posts immediately in rural/remote tribal areas by way of regular appointment. According to Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, filling up the posts by way of PTA is a temporary arrangement. Mr. Sharma further submits that the services of only those teachers were regularized who fulfilled the minimum educational qualification and have worked for number of years. Consequently, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge November 12, 2009. *awasthi* CWP(T) No. 13318/2008 13.11.2009 Present: Mr. Javed Khan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior additional Advocate General with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. In the State of Himachal Pradesh, 918 posts of Constables I.e. 701 posts of newly created 3rd India Reserve Battalion and 217 posts in 1st India Reserve Battalion were to be filled up. On the basis of the reservation policy, 3% vacancies were reserved for the distinguished sportsperson by way of horizontal reservation and accordingly 28 posts were reserved for the sportsmen. The petitioner submitted application for appointment to the post of constable in the sportsman category. One post was reserved in District Bilaspur. He qualified the examination along with one Sh. Rakesh Kumar. Sh. Rakesh Kumar secured 68.7 marks and the petitioner has only secured 57.2 marks. Consequently, he was not found suitable on the basis of merit. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge November 13, 2009. *awasthi* CWP(T) No. 13319/2008 13.11.2009 Present: Mr. Javed Khan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior additional Advocate General with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. In the State of Himachal Pradesh, 918 posts of Constables i.e. 701 posts of newly created 3rd India Reserve Battalion and 217 posts in 1st India Reserve Battalion were to be filled up. On the basis of the reservation policy, 3% vacancies were reserved for the distinguished sportsperson by way of horizontal reservation and accordingly 28 posts were reserved for the sportsmen. The petitioner submitted application for appointment to the post of constable in the sportsman category. One post was reserved in District Bilaspur. He qualified the examination along with two other candidates, nammely, Rakesh Kumar and Sandeep Kumar. Sh. Rakesh Kumar secured 68.7 marks and Sandeep Kumar secured 57.2 marks. The petitioner has only secured 51 marks. Consequently, he was not found suitable on the basis of merit. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge November 13, 2009. *awasthi* CWP(T) No. 12114/2008 23.11.2009 Present: Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General for Respondents No. 1 to 3. The petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No. 4 to the post of Early Child Care Instructors. The suitability of the candidates was gone into by a duly constituted Selection Committee. The petitioner has secured 8.2 marks, however, respondent No. 4 has secured 10 marks. No mala fides have been alleged by the petitioner against the members of the Selection Committee. Once the suitability of the candidates has been considered and the merit list has been prepared by a duly constituted Selection Committee, this Court will not sit in appeal over the same. Consequently, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge November 23, 2009. *awasthi* CWP(T) No. 12125/2008 19.11.2009 Present: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. The petitioner was considered for the post of Part Time Water Career in Government Primary School, Ghumarpur. The suitability of the petitioner was adjudged by a duly constituted Selection committee. The petitioner secured 15 marks and respondent No. 5 secured 22 marks. The petitioner has not produced the requisite certificates as per the contents of the reply. Mr. Ramakant Sharma has argued that his client has furnished the certificates at the time of interview. We are of the considered view that it is a highly disputed question of fact and cannot be gone into by this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The suitability of the candidates has been assessed by a duly constituted Selection Committee. This Court will not sit in appeal over the assessment already made by a duly constituted Selection Committee. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge November 19, 2009. *awasthi* CWP(T) No. 13407/2008 19.11.2009 Present: Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. The petitioner has asailed office order dated 14.3.2006 whereby penalty of recovery of Rs. 1,97,710/- in seventy two equal installments has been imposed upon by the petitioner. Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate submits that the FIR was also registered against the petitioner after the accident had taken place. The petitioner was tried by the Criminal Court. He was acquitted by the Criminal Court. He has also produced a copy of letter dated 3.2.2009 for the perusal of the Court. A bare perusal of letter dated 3.2.2009 shows that a conscious decision has been taken by the management of the respondent-corporation that in such cases where the drivers have been acquitted in criminal cases, recovery orders are to be withdrawn subject to withdrawal of original application by the official/driver concerned. The copy of letter dated 3.2.2009 is returned after its perusal. Accordingly, since the petitioner has already been acquitted by the Criminal Court, Annexure A-7 dated 14.3.2006 is quashed and set aside. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge November 19, 2009. *awasthi* CWP(T) No. 15945 of 2008 12.11.2009 Present: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents. The petitioner has been regularized during the pendency of this petition as per the contention of the learned counsel for the parties. However, he is seeking regularisation with effect from 1.1.2006. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General submits that the case of the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law if he makes representation for the redressal of his grievance to the Secretary (Education). Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to make representation to the Secretary (Education), Government of Himachal Pradesh for the redressal of his grievance within a period of two weeks from today. The Secretary (Education) is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today. Consequently, in view of the above directions, the petition is disposed of. No costs. (R.B. Misra), ACJ . (Rajiv Sharma),J. 12th November, 2009. *awasthi* CWP(T) No. 14582/2008 12.11.2009 Present: Mr. Onkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. The petitioner has assailed his retrenchment. We have gone through the mandays chart filed by the respondents. The petitioner has completed 240 days preceding his retrenchment. In view of this, he was required to be issued notice under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In normal circumstances, the petitioner was required to be relegated to the machinery provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, however, since admittedly the petitioner has completed 240 days preceding his retrenchment, we have entertained this petition in the interest of justice though alternative remedy is available to the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been issued any notice under Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Consequently, the retrenchment of the petitioner is set aside. The respondents are directed to re-engage the petitioner in the same capacity i.e. Beldar. He will not be entitled lto any back wages. However, to maintain the equity and fair play, the period of break in service shall be treated towards seniority alone. The appointment be offered to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. With these observations/directions, the petition is disposed of. No costs. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge November 12, 2009. *awasthi* CWP(T) No. 15514/2008 10.11.2009 Present: Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate submits that in view of para 3 of the reply filed by the respondents, the respondents may be directed to do the needful within a reasonable period. Consequently, the respondents are directed to take necessary steps as undertaken within a period of six weeks from today. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. No costs. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge November 10, 2009. *awasthi* CWP(T) No. 14714/2008 10.11.2009 Present: Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. The petitioner has approached this Court against the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against him. The fact of the matter is that after the culmination of the disciplinary proceedings, the penalty stands imposed upon the petitioner. In view of this the petition is rendered infructuous. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed having become infructuous. However, the liberty is reserved to the petitioner to assail the order of imposition of penalty in accordance with law. No costs. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge November 10, 2009. *awasthi* CWP(T) No. 1179 of 2008 4.11.2009 Present: Mr. Mr. H.K. Paul, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General for respondents-State. The petitioners are working as part time Chowkidars. The State Government on its own wisdom framed a policy for regularization of part time workers i.e. Annexure A-2