IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 12527 of 2008 Date of decision: 08.04.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Parveen Kumar. .....Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation & others. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. B.N. Mehta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 & 2. Respondent No. 3 in person. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The case of the petitioner as set out vide para 3(iv) is as under: “3(iv) The applicant has been terminated from his service of Bus Shayak on contract basis orally on 17.7.04 without any notice or reason by the respondent No. 2 i.e. Regional Manager H.R.T.C. Chamba and interview was called on 12.7.2004 but one Sh. Ravinder Kumar s/o Sh. Paras Ram r/o village Kiani P.O. Kiani Tehsil & District Chamba H.P. has been selected and appointed as Bus Sahayak on contract basis which is illegal, against the law and against the principles of natural justice hence this petition against the termination of the applicant and quashing the appointment of respondent No. 3.” 2. On the above averments, the petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7(a) and (b): “7(a) That the respondents be ordered to re-instate the applicant on the same post of Bus Sahayak as at the time of his termination with continuity of service, and all the consequential benefits. (b) That the selection and appointment of respondent No. 3 as Bus Sahayak consequent to the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... interview held on 12.7.2004 be ordered to be quashed.” 3. In reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 the following stand has been taken vide para 3: “3. The contents of this para of the O.A are totally false incorrect, fabricated, hence denied that the applicant has mis-represented the facts before this Hon'ble Tribunal. As a matter of fact due to some financial crises some stop gap arrangement has been made by the respondent corporation and work for issuing the tickets to the passenger in the HRTC buses were awarded to the interested persons, who were willing to do the work purely on 2.50% commission basis on the total sale proceed of the denomination tickets. The applicant alongwith others have submitted their applications, to the respondent No. 2 and after due consideration, the above mentioned work was awarded to the applicant alongwith others after executing proper agreement for a period of one year on the following term and conditions. 1) The contractor / applicant was bound to issue the tickets to the traveling passengers as per fare fixed by the corporation and it was obligatory on the part of applicant to maintain absolute discipline in the corporation. 2) In first case of embezzlement/ticketless traveling ten times of the amount shall be recovered from the applicants in case amount of ticketless traveling more than Rs. 100/- the contractual agreement shall be cancelled. 3) In second case the contract of bus sahayak shall be cancelled by imposing ten times penalty. 4) The applicant will not claim the job/service from HRTC in near future. 5) In case any dispute arisen under the clause of this agreement then the matter shall be referred to the Managing Director, HRTC, who shall act as sole- Arbitrator and his decision shall be final and binding on the contractor/bus sahayak. It is emphatically mentioned here that the applicant was never engaged/appointed as daily wager/part time/contingency paid and fixed remuneration employee on contractual basis. Nothing has been paid to applicant during the tenure of contract over and above commission @ 3.5% on the total sale proceed of the tickets. Moreover, there is no relation between the applicant and this corporation as master and servant- because as per term and conditions of the agreement which has duly signed by the applicant before the magistrate. Fixed commission paid regularly, as and when he raised / submitted the bill to the office for the ...3... claim in respect of commission mentioned above as such the applicant cannot claim the job from this corporation as a matter of right. (The copy of agreement dated 31.12.2002 is enclosed herewith as annexure R-1) and the same was extended wef 1.1.2004 to 31.12.2004 copies of the agreement is annexure R-2 that in view of the facts narrated above, after the end of the period of the agreement between the applicant and the respondent the applicant is not eligible for the post of conductor. That the has indulged in ticket less traveling on many occasions and was caught by the flying squad in connection with the embezzlement cases reports of the same are Annexure R-3 and R-4. That the plea of the applicant that on the selection of the TMPA/Conductors his agreement was cancelled, in fact the applicant had appeared in the oral and written test but failed to qualify as such he cannot be compared with the selection of the respondent No. 3. As such, the action of the respondent No. 2 is constitutional and genuine in the eyes of law.” 4. There is no reply on behalf of respondent No. 3, who is present in person. However, he has adopted the reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. 5. In view of the above reply and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction that subject to the petitioner making a representation alongwith copy of this judgment to respondent No. 1/competent authority within a month from today, who shall consider and decide the same within next one month in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. 6. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 8th April, 2011 (virender)