SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(HP) 746

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
Yashwant Dev Bhardwaj S/o Late Shri Jamna Dass Bhardwaj – Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh University – Respondent
Civil Writ Petition (Original Application) No. 4442 of 2019
Decided On : 07-09-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Ranjana Parmar, Karan Parmar.
For the Respondents: Surinder Verma, Anil K. God, O.P. Chauhan.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 16 - Himachal Pradesh University Ministerial and Administrative Services (Recruitment, Promotions and Certain Condition of Services) Rules, 1973 - Rule 3(8) - Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with decision of respondent-university, left out petitioners represented to respondent No.1 through office of Director, Correspondence Courses, but such representation of them was rejected without any reason and same was communicated to them vide communication - All petitioners were regularized vide orders as is evident from copy of office order placed on record - Since petitioners despite their regularization were not given benefit of service rendered by them on adhoc basis while counting seniority, they approached respondents but they were advised to wait till time decision is rendered by this Court - Whether service rendered by petitioners prior to regularization is required to be taken into consideration for purpose of seniority, pensionary benefits as well as other service benefits – Held, services rendered prior to regularisation in any capacity be it work-charged employees, contingency paid fund employees or nonpensionable establishment has to be counted towards qualifying service even if such service is not preceded by temporary or regular appointment in a pensionable establishment - Obviously no discrimination can be made qua employees, who rendered services prior to regularisation in capacity of contractual employees and were regularised only because they had put in requisite number of years of service on contractual basis like their counterparts who had rendered services in capacity of work charged employees, contingency paid fund employees or non-pensionable establishment, of course, for that matter even on adhoc basis - Petition allowed.

ORDER :

1. In the year, 1971, petitioners herein, came to be appointed as Clerks on daily wages basis in the Directorate of Correspondence Courses, Himachal Pradesh University. On 5.11.1971, respondents decided to hold competitive test of the staff engaged on daily wage basis for the purpose of selection as clerks on ad-hoc basis. Vide communication dated 18.12.1972 (Annexure P-1), respondents took a decision to create posts of clerks to be filled up on ad-hoc basis and in the same year, respondents made appointment to the aforesaid posts of clerk on ad-hoc basis. Perusal of aforesaid communication dated 18.12.1972, reveals that respondent University agreed in principal to create the posts as mentioned in the aforesaid annexure and Assistant Registrar was directed to observe necessary codal formalities in that regard. This Communication further reveals that newly created posts were approved in the budget for the year, 1972-73. Since regular vacancies of clerks were available with the respondent-University, it decided to appoint the existing daily wage Clerks on ad-hoc basis in the regular pay scale of Rs. 110-250. Since University had not framed any R&P rules, it decided to fill up aforesaid vacancies on ad-hoc basis, however, before making appointments on ad-hoc basis, petitioners as well as other similarly situate persons were made to appear before the Selection Board constituted under the Chairmanship of Director, Correspondence Courses, as is evident from the communication dated 5.11.1971, whereby decision to hold the competitive test of staff engaged on daily wage basis for the purpose of selection as clerk on ad-hoc basis in regular pay scale was taken. Though at the time of the appointment of the petitioners as clerk on ad-hoc basis, no rules for recruitment/promotion and conditions of service for ministerial and administrative services of the university were framed, but as per prevalent practice and procedure, the regular appointments of clerks were being made by the respondent- University on the basis of written test/dictation and interview. However, at subsequent stage, typing test was also introduced in place of dictation test of the candidates having undergraduate qualification. On 6.7.1973, Himachal Pradesh University Ministerial and Administrative Services (Recruitment, Promotions and Certain Condition of Services) Rules, 1973 were framed by the Executive Council of HP University. Though respondent-University through Recruitment Branch made appointment to the regularly created posts of the clerks in the University during 1972, but no steps were taken to regularize the ad-hoc appointment of the clerks in the Directorate of Correspondence Courses despite their having filed representation and litigation. However, subsequently, agreement inter-se Vice Chancellor of the University and representatives of Non-Teaching Employees Associations in August, 1973 came to be effected, which was further ratified by the Executive Council in its meeting on 31.8.1973 (Annexure P-3), but despite there being aforesaid agreement and decision of the Executive Council, respondent University failed to issue orders of regularization of the petitioners for more than five months. However, subsequently, vide order dated 22.1.1974 (Annexure P-4), Vice Chancellor, HP University, regularized the ad-hoc appointment of the persons including the present petitioners as clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 110-4-330/5-100/5-230/8-250 plus other allowances as admissible under the rules with immediate effect subject to certain conditions. Since some of the petitioners had applied for the post of clerk in the University directly and they appeared in the test and interview held for the purpose of direct recruitment and as such, were appointed as clerk on 15.4.1973, however, names of such petitioners were left out in communication dated 22.1.1974 (Annexure P-4) without any valid and plausible reasons though they were similarly situate to the rest of the petition

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top