IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 14127 of 2008 Decided on : 14.11.2011 ________________________________________________ Ram Gopal Negi and others … Petitioners. Versus Union of India and others … Respondents. ___________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1No. For the petitioners : Ms Sunita Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, ASGI, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy.A.G. for respondent No.3. Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate, vice Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ____________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge (oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7 (i) to (iv):- “i) That the respondent No.1 may be directed to place on record copies of d.o. letter No.12-1/2001-CSWB, dated 21.9.2004 and letter dated 16.11.2004 issued by the respondent No.1 and thereafter the same may be quashed and set aside by applying the principle of severability; 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ii) That the respondents may be directed to absorb the applicants against the equivalent posts they are holding in the Project either in ICDS or other State Government Departments on the analogy of States of U.P., Punjab, Gujarat and Maharashtra; iii) That the respondents may be directed to grant all consequential benefits to the applicants after absorbing them in ICDS or other State Government Departments i.e. seniority, regular pay scale, seniority etc.; iv) That the respondents may be directed to allow the applicants to discharge their respective duties till their absorption.” 2. In reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, the following stand has been taken vide paras (I) and 4(iii) & 4(iv):- “(I). In reply to this para it is submitted that the replying respondent No. 1 and 2 has written letter to the Chief Secretary to all the States including Himachal Pradesh State to absorb/adjust the employees of the Welfare Extension Project (BAP) and Demonstration Project into the ICDS vide letter dated 31.12.2004 through department of Social Justice and Empowerment as a result of phasing out or closing down and stopping the grant-in-aid by the Respondent No.1. The copy of the letter dated 31.12.2004 is annexed herewith as Annexure R-1. The replying respondent No.2 was not in position to 3 continue the programme and directed the respondent No.4 to take-up follow-up the matter regarding absorption of Staff-Welfare Extension Project and Demonstration Project Theog, into ICDS. The situation to retire the employees would have not arises, if the State Govt. i.e R-3 had taken decision to absorb the staff retired due to closing down the projects by R-I and R-2. 4(iii) That the contents of this para are admitted to the extent that despite the repeated reminders and request made by the respondent No.1, 2, the respondent No.3 i.e state Govt. have not responded positively and the matter is still under active consideration of the Govt. and due to non- receipt of any decision, the respondent No. 2 and 4 were not in a opposition to continue the Welfare Extension Projects/Demonstration project and their service were terminated w.e.f. 1.4.2000 copies of correspondence done by the respondent No.1 and 2 withy respondent No.3 is enclosed herewith (Annexure R-2 and R-3 respectively) for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble court. (iv) That the contents of this para are admitted to the extent that despite the repeated reminders and request made by the respondent No. 1 and 2 the respondent No.3 i.e State Govt. have not responded positively and the matter is still under active consideration of the Govt. and due to non- receipt of any decision, the respondent No.2 4 and 4 were not in a position to continue the Welfare Extension Project/Demonstration Project. The clopy of letter dated 11.3.2004 written by the respondent No.2 with respondent No.3 i.e State Govt. is already enclosed herewith as Annexure R-2 with this reply.” 3. Respondent No.3 has taken the following stand vide paras 3 and 4 of the preliminary submissions:- “3. In the instant case the applicants are working under the scheme where 67% grant- in-aid is being released by the Central Social Welfare Advisory Board and 33% by the State Government. As regards the releasing of state share, State Government has been releasing the grant every year to the State Social Welfare Board. The applicants are working as Peon and Balsevikas, in the State Social Welfare Boards mentioned in the O.A. and under the direct administrative control of the respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 is receiving grant-in-aid from the respondent No.2 i.e Central Social Welfare Board as well as from the State Government. The applicants are not the employees of the respondent No.4 which is autonomous body whereas the role of the State Govt. is restricted to release the grant-in-aid to the respondent No.4 only. The respondent No.4 is a subsidiary institution of Central Social Welfare Advisory Board i.e. respondent No.2 and working under the guidelines/directions 5 of respondent No.2 and getting grant-in-aid from them directly. 4. That the Balwadi Centres being run by the Welfare Extension Projects at Kaza, Keylong and Kinnaur from 1.4.2005, has been closed by the State Social Welfare Board, H.P. on the directions of Central Social Welfare Advisory Board, New Delhi. The applicants were the employees of respondent No.4 and as such the decision regarding the declaring the surplus staff has been taken by the State Social Welfare Board itself. As regard absorption/adjustment of the applicants in the ICDS scheme being run by the State Government is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that the matter is under consideration of the Government, but it is not obligatory/binding to the State Government that the surplus staff of the respondent No.4 have to be observed/adjusted in the department. Moreover, the applicants had been offered the appointments by respondent No.4 with its own terms and conditions for the services of the Applicants and being governed by the rule and regulations framed by the respondent No.4. 4. Vide order dated 19.3.2007, respondent No.4 has adopted the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. 5. In view of the above replies, particularly on behalf of respondent No.3 (para 4) that the matter was 6 under consideration of the Government, the petition is disposed of with a direction that subject to the petitioners making a detailed representation(s) supported by documents, if any, along with copy of this judgment to respondent No.3 within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, the said respondent shall consider and decide the same within further three months in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, if so desired. 6. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any, in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. November 14, 2011. (Lsp)