IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos. 979 of 2000 and 431 of 2001 Date of decision: 7.7.2008 CWP No. 979 of 2000 Janki Ram. Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others. Respondents CWP No.431 of 2001 Lokesh Thakur Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. CWP Nos. 979 of 2000 and 431 of 2001 For the petitioner: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Central Govt. Counsel. Per Deepak Gupta, J. By means of this judgement, the aforesaid two petitions are being disposed of as similar question of fact and law are involved in these two cases. CWP No.979 of 2000 The petitioner in this writ petition filed an original application before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. According to the petitioner, he 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes 2 had been employed as Hindi Typist on daily wage basis on 14.11.1990 in the office of the Executive Engineer, Central Public Works Department, (CPWD) Shimla. He had been working as such without any break till the year 1999. In 1999 the employer asked the petitioner to give quotations for doing the work, in case, he was interested in continuing in the department. He was also told if his quotation is on the higher side, he could be shunted out of job. The applicant prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to regularize him in service and further respondents be directed to continue the petitioner in service and be restrained from getting the work of Hindi Typist done on contract basis. The stand of the CPWD was that the applicant was engaged on contract basis and the work finished on 30.4.1999 and since the applicant is working like a contractor his services can be dispensed with. The learned Tribunal found that the applicant was working as a typist on daily wage basis and he was not a contractor. It came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not being paid on contractual basis. It was also found that the petitioner had been working as daily wage employee for more than 10 years and the work of Hindi Typist was available in the department. The petition was disposed of with the following direction: 3 “In view of the above, we dispose of this O.A with a direction that the applicant shall be allowed to continue till such time a regular employee is appointed in his place or the work of Hindi Typist is available. It is clarified that his services shall not be dispensed with in order to accommodate another person on ad hoc or temporary arrangement for the same work.” On the last date of hearing we had noticed that despite the fact that work of Hindi Typist was available the services of the petitioner had been dispensed with even though the respondents had not challenged the order passed by the learned Tribunal. CWP No. 431 of 2001. As far as CWP No. 431 of 2001 is concerned the case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the advertisement issued in January, 1997 he appeared before a Selection Committee and was issued work order for doing the work of Computer operator at the rate of Rs.2200/- per month. In case of absence from duty a sum of Rs.72/- per day was being deducted from his duty. Later on when the daily wages were increased, the salary of the petitioner was increased from Rs.2200/- per month to Rs.2700/- per month. Like the petitioner in the other case, in 1999, the petitioner was compelled to give quotations for doing his work instead of monthly salary and he challenged the said action of the respondents. His petition was disposed of in the following terms:- 4 “Ld. Counsel for the parties concede that the controversy raised in this O.A. is precisely the same as in the case of Janki Ram vs. Union of India and ors., in O.A. 578/HP/99 decided on 16.8.2000, except that the applicant in OA 578/99 was a Hindi Typist whereas the applicant in this O.A. is Computer Operator, and this O.A. be also disposed of in the same terms. For the stand taken by the ld. Counsel for the parties, this O.A. is disposed of in the same terms as in the case of Janki Ram (Supra). No costs.” In this case the Executive Engineer, CPWD Central Division, Shimla issued office order on 30.11.2000 in compliance of the directions passed in the Original Application by which the services of the petitioner were extended up to 31.12.2000 or earlier subject to any decision by this court. According to the Executive Engineer, the department had decided to challenge the judgement of the learned Tribunal before this court. However, till date, no such writ petition has been filed. On 13.12.2000, the services of the petitioner were terminated only on the ground that they are no longer required in the office. On the next day, i.e. 14.12.2000, a letter was written to the petitioner that he had been operating the computer since 1997 and that his services were terminated from 13.12.2000 and after termination of the services, it was observed that certain files/ returns were 5 found deleted from the computer. The petitioner was asked to come to the office on the next date to retrieve all the files. Thereafter on 16.12.2000, sealed quotations were invited for providing computer services. There are other orders placed on the record to show that computer work has been got done on contract basis. In our opinion this clearly amounts to violation of the order of the learned Tribunal. The respondents had not challenged the order of the learned Tribunal. Admittedly, no regular person has been appointed in place of the petitioner. From the letter, it is also clear that the work of Computer operator was available and the same was got done on contract basis. In both the cases, it is apparent that the respondents have themselves sat over the orders of the learned Tribunal. They were directed to continue the petitioner(s) in service till such time the regular employee is appointed in their place or the work in their relevant filed is available. These orders were never challenged by the employer. It was, therefore, the duty of the employer to have complied with these orders. We, however, find that the respondents virtually sat over the orders of the learned Tribunal and dispensed with the services of the 6 employees in clear violation of the orders of the learned Tribunal. As far as, prayer for regularization of the services of the petitioner(s) is concerned, we are of the view that no such prayer can be granted by us. This Court cannot direct the regularization the services of an employee. However, since the respondents have not challenged the order of the learned Tribunal, we are clearly of the view that they are, therefore, required to comply with the orders of the learned Tribunal. No party can be permitted to sit over the orders of a judicial authority. Every party has a right to challenge the orders if it is aggrieved by such orders but if it does not challenge the order it must obey the same. In the present cases, the orders of the learned Tribunal have not been challenged by the respondents, therefore, the respondents were bound to comply with the orders of the learned Tribunal. In case, they fail to do so, the petitioners shall be at liberty to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents. Both the writ petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid directions. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. July 7, 2008 ( V.K.Ahuja), J. ™ 7