Back
2011 Supreme(HP) 1856
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
Bhupinder Kumar Sharma. …Petitioner
Versus
Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Solan, H.P., through its Registrar. …Respondents.
C.W.P. (T) No. 9705 of 2008
Decided on: 30.03.2011.
For the petitioner.:Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate.
For the respondent.:Mr. Rupinder Thakur, Advocate.
The main legal point established is the unenforceability of undertakings against public policy and the violation of constitutional rights through discriminatory treatment.
Headnote:
Seniority List - Employment Dispute - [Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872, Article 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India] - The court discussed the petitioner's continuous employment with the respondent-University, the re-inclusion of names in the seniority list, and the discriminatory treatment of the petitioner compared to similarly situated individuals. The court highlighted the violation of constitutional rights and the unenforceability of undertakings against public policy.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was employed on a daily wage basis and subsequently engaged in various projects by the respondent-University. His name was deleted from the seniority list, and his representations for re-inclusion were rejected. The respondent terminated the petitioner's services after the project's completion.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent-University discriminated against the petitioner by not re-including his name in the seniority list and not considering his case at par with similarly situated individuals. The court also held that the undertakings obtained from the petitioner were unenforceable and violative of constitutional rights.
Issues: The issues involved the continuous employment of the petitioner, re-inclusion in the seniority list, discriminatory treatment, and the enforceability of undertakings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent-University's actions were discriminatory and violated the petitioner's constitutional rights. The undertakings obtained were unenforceable and against public policy.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the rejections of the petitioner's representations were quashed. The petitioner was deemed to be in continuous employment with the respondent-University as a daily paid laborer, but entitled only to notional benefits without back wages. No costs were awarded.
Rajiv Sharma, Judge
Petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis in the respondent-University on 17.04.1995. He continued to discharge his duties on daily wage basis till 04.11.1996. Thereafter, he was engaged as Technician in Centre Sponsored Scheme w.e.f. 05.11.1996 to 30.10.1999. The name of the petitioner was shown in the seniority list of daily paid labourers at Sr. No. 497 in 1998. His name figured at Sr. No. 290 in the seniority list issued in the year 1999. He was engaged as Field Assistant in “Micro Propagation and Multi Locational Trial of Apple Root Stocks” on 01.11.1999 till 31st July, 2003. Name of the petitioner figures at Sr. No. 149 in the seniority list of D.P.Ls. issued in the year 2000. Thereafter, name of the petitioner was deleted from the seniority list of D.P.Ls. Petitioner made a detailed representation for including his name in the seniority list of D.P.Ls. on 03.06.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner has again made a detailed representation vide Annexure A-7 on 21.08.2001, for including his name in the seniority list. Petitioner has also given the instances of similarly situate persons, whose appointment was on co-terminus basis, however, their names were retained in the seniority list of D.P.Ls. Petitioner has given the instances of 12 persons. The representation made by the petitioner was rejected without a speaking order on 20.05.2003. Petitioner made a fresh representation on 27.06.2003, giving therein specifically the name of Shri Manohar Lal, who was similarly situate to the petitioner. He also mentioned names of Shri Parkash Chand, Shri Prem Kumar and Shri Yash Pal. The representation made by the petitioner was rejected on 29.07.2003. The services of the petitioner were also terminated after completion of project w.e.f. 31.07.2003 on 28.07.2003 vide Annexure A-11.
2. Mr. P.P. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the respondent-University could not terminate the services of the petitioner on 28.07.2003 vide Annexure A-11. According to him, the name of the petitioner was required to be re-included in the seniority list of D.P.Ls. after the closure of the project and he was required to be at least continued on daily wage basis. According to him, similarly situate person, namely, Shri Manohar Lal, Shri Parkash Chand, Shri Prem Kumar and Shri Yash Pal as Beldars, have been retained by the respondent-University after their services were terminated.
3. Mr. Rupinder Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that since the appointment of the petitioner was co-terminus with the project, his name could not be included in the list of D.P.Ls.. He has also relied upon undertaking given by the petitioner on 03.11.1999 at the time of his engagement as Field Assistant. He further contended that the case of Shri Manohar Lal and similarly situate persons was considered for inclusion in the seniority list since they have put in number of years in the respondent-University on daily wage basis.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged on 17.04.1995. He has worked in this capacity till 04.11.1996. Thereafter, without any break, the petitioner was appointed as Technician in Centre Sponsored Scheme w.e.f. 05.11.1996 to 30.10.1999. He was engaged on 01.11.1999 to 31.08.2003 as Field Assistant in the project. His name figured in the seniority lists of 1998, 1999 and 2000 of daily paid laborers. His name was abruptly deleted in 2001, which led to the representation made by the petitioner vide Annexure A-6, dated 03.06.2001. Petitioner has given the instances of 12 persons in Annexure A-7, dated 21.08.2001, who were also engaged in the projects and after termination of the project, they were continued as Beldars on the basis of their names being included in the seniority list. It is evident from the reply filed by the respondent-University that as far a
